<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_18_1556204</id>
	<title>Accountability of the Scientific Stimulus Funding</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1258560300000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eldavojohn writes <i>"A blog <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/24419/">tipped me off</a> to a <a href="http://www.scienceworksforus.org/">government site</a> that allows me to see where my tax dollars went when the nebulous 'scientific stimulus' was granted.  You might be able to find this information in a bill, but you can click on your state in this interactive site to see what has happened locally to you.  Perhaps it's a sign of more <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/07/01/0032230/US-Gov-Launches-Web-Site-To-Track-IT-Spending">government transparency in regards to spending</a> or just more propaganda."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " A blog tipped me off to a government site that allows me to see where my tax dollars went when the nebulous 'scientific stimulus ' was granted .
You might be able to find this information in a bill , but you can click on your state in this interactive site to see what has happened locally to you .
Perhaps it 's a sign of more government transparency in regards to spending or just more propaganda .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "A blog tipped me off to a government site that allows me to see where my tax dollars went when the nebulous 'scientific stimulus' was granted.
You might be able to find this information in a bill, but you can click on your state in this interactive site to see what has happened locally to you.
Perhaps it's a sign of more government transparency in regards to spending or just more propaganda.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145020</id>
	<title>Yipie!  A new way to view GOVERNMENT WASET!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257096660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This site is probably, yet another, liberal democrat boondoggle where the facts and figures are nothing more than LIES!</p><p>IMPEACH ALL democrats!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This site is probably , yet another , liberal democrat boondoggle where the facts and figures are nothing more than LIES ! IMPEACH ALL democrats !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This site is probably, yet another, liberal democrat boondoggle where the facts and figures are nothing more than LIES!IMPEACH ALL democrats!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30153314</id>
	<title>Re:This is all I've got to say about this.</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1257100800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure that calling African-American Southerners "idiots" is entirely appropriate in any situation.  People make math errors all the time, especially those raised in ill-funded school systems.  I think a little tolerance is in order.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure that calling African-American Southerners " idiots " is entirely appropriate in any situation .
People make math errors all the time , especially those raised in ill-funded school systems .
I think a little tolerance is in order .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure that calling African-American Southerners "idiots" is entirely appropriate in any situation.
People make math errors all the time, especially those raised in ill-funded school systems.
I think a little tolerance is in order.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30148990</id>
	<title>Re:stifling progress</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1257071640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>really? really? have you lokoed at the fantastic scientific projrects funded by the government?</p><p>Apollo and it's many spin offs, GPS, Internet, Computers, aeronautics. al these projects have paved the way for scientific progress. They sat the ground work for what is going on today.</p><p>"<br>scientific programs designed to uphold mainstream scientific interpretations of data,"<br>that sentence make no sense and it indicates the lefvel of ignorance about science and government funded science you have.</p><p>Consider how little funding the Plasma Cosmologists have gotten, in comparison to the huge amount of money that has gone to astrophysicists who tell us that the universe is almost entirely invisible and virtually undetectable.<br>how do those compare? you do realize the dark matter/energy is a real measurable force, right? now there is a chance that newtons laws don't work so well at the scales we are talking here, but if that's true, the dark matter/energy path will gt us there.</p><p>"on observed data instead of mathematical conjecture."<br>Both are valid, both work. Planets where predict to exist and there location known that led to the discovery.</p><p>I just reread you post. some how I notices this "Plasma Cosmologists" My mind skipped of Plasma. You do know the Einsteins general relativity has been shown to be correct, right?</p><p>and that nucleosynthesis  that is needed for plasma cosmology doesn't fit any of the known data?</p><p>Plasma Cosmologists have been shown to be incorrect. They need to show better data, or shut the hell up and join the ranks of science that didn't pan out. IT was good science, but that doesn't mean you get the answers you want.</p><p>What next? you going to complain that people who tell personalities by reading lumps on there head should get the same funding as neurology?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>really ?
really ? have you lokoed at the fantastic scientific projrects funded by the government ? Apollo and it 's many spin offs , GPS , Internet , Computers , aeronautics .
al these projects have paved the way for scientific progress .
They sat the ground work for what is going on today .
" scientific programs designed to uphold mainstream scientific interpretations of data , " that sentence make no sense and it indicates the lefvel of ignorance about science and government funded science you have.Consider how little funding the Plasma Cosmologists have gotten , in comparison to the huge amount of money that has gone to astrophysicists who tell us that the universe is almost entirely invisible and virtually undetectable.how do those compare ?
you do realize the dark matter/energy is a real measurable force , right ?
now there is a chance that newtons laws do n't work so well at the scales we are talking here , but if that 's true , the dark matter/energy path will gt us there .
" on observed data instead of mathematical conjecture .
" Both are valid , both work .
Planets where predict to exist and there location known that led to the discovery.I just reread you post .
some how I notices this " Plasma Cosmologists " My mind skipped of Plasma .
You do know the Einsteins general relativity has been shown to be correct , right ? and that nucleosynthesis that is needed for plasma cosmology does n't fit any of the known data ? Plasma Cosmologists have been shown to be incorrect .
They need to show better data , or shut the hell up and join the ranks of science that did n't pan out .
IT was good science , but that does n't mean you get the answers you want.What next ?
you going to complain that people who tell personalities by reading lumps on there head should get the same funding as neurology ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>really?
really? have you lokoed at the fantastic scientific projrects funded by the government?Apollo and it's many spin offs, GPS, Internet, Computers, aeronautics.
al these projects have paved the way for scientific progress.
They sat the ground work for what is going on today.
"scientific programs designed to uphold mainstream scientific interpretations of data,"that sentence make no sense and it indicates the lefvel of ignorance about science and government funded science you have.Consider how little funding the Plasma Cosmologists have gotten, in comparison to the huge amount of money that has gone to astrophysicists who tell us that the universe is almost entirely invisible and virtually undetectable.how do those compare?
you do realize the dark matter/energy is a real measurable force, right?
now there is a chance that newtons laws don't work so well at the scales we are talking here, but if that's true, the dark matter/energy path will gt us there.
"on observed data instead of mathematical conjecture.
"Both are valid, both work.
Planets where predict to exist and there location known that led to the discovery.I just reread you post.
some how I notices this "Plasma Cosmologists" My mind skipped of Plasma.
You do know the Einsteins general relativity has been shown to be correct, right?and that nucleosynthesis  that is needed for plasma cosmology doesn't fit any of the known data?Plasma Cosmologists have been shown to be incorrect.
They need to show better data, or shut the hell up and join the ranks of science that didn't pan out.
IT was good science, but that doesn't mean you get the answers you want.What next?
you going to complain that people who tell personalities by reading lumps on there head should get the same funding as neurology?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144888</id>
	<title>Re:This is all I've got to say about this.</title>
	<author>TimHunter</author>
	<datestamp>1257096120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Data entry errors. <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/11/17/looking-big-picture-recovery-act/" title="whitehouse.gov">http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/11/17/looking-big-picture-recovery-act/</a> [whitehouse.gov]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Data entry errors .
http : //www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/11/17/looking-big-picture-recovery-act/ [ whitehouse.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Data entry errors.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/11/17/looking-big-picture-recovery-act/ [whitehouse.gov]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30147254</id>
	<title>Re:Biased much?</title>
	<author>gijoel</author>
	<datestamp>1257106200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's hilarious to watch loons like you writhe about in abject terror over the coming End of America.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Given the millennial sentiments in the States, you'd think they'd welcome Obama as the first step towards the rapture.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's hilarious to watch loons like you writhe about in abject terror over the coming End of America .
Given the millennial sentiments in the States , you 'd think they 'd welcome Obama as the first step towards the rapture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's hilarious to watch loons like you writhe about in abject terror over the coming End of America.
Given the millennial sentiments in the States, you'd think they'd welcome Obama as the first step towards the rapture.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146486</id>
	<title>In Missouri money was spent on...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257102600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Facebook for scientist!  http://www.scienceworksforus.org/missouri/stimulus-grant-establishes-facebook-for-scientists</p><p>"Science has become increasingly complex, and that's leading to diverse research collaborations that often fall outside of traditional lines," says Kristi Holmes, Ph.D., bioinformaticist at Washington University's Bernard Becker Medical Library. "This new network will help researchers find one another and explore potential avenues of collaboration that they might not have considered before."</p><p>Wow!  What a discovery!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook for scientist !
http : //www.scienceworksforus.org/missouri/stimulus-grant-establishes-facebook-for-scientists " Science has become increasingly complex , and that 's leading to diverse research collaborations that often fall outside of traditional lines , " says Kristi Holmes , Ph.D. , bioinformaticist at Washington University 's Bernard Becker Medical Library .
" This new network will help researchers find one another and explore potential avenues of collaboration that they might not have considered before. " Wow !
What a discovery !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook for scientist!
http://www.scienceworksforus.org/missouri/stimulus-grant-establishes-facebook-for-scientists"Science has become increasingly complex, and that's leading to diverse research collaborations that often fall outside of traditional lines," says Kristi Holmes, Ph.D., bioinformaticist at Washington University's Bernard Becker Medical Library.
"This new network will help researchers find one another and explore potential avenues of collaboration that they might not have considered before."Wow!
What a discovery!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146686</id>
	<title>Re:Stimulus Funding</title>
	<author>acidfast7</author>
	<datestamp>1257103560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>2-year non-renewable R01. Not so interested in that. In addition, it really fucks things up for the regular cycle of grant submissions. Expect, middle single digit success rates<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:( for R01s.</htmltext>
<tokenext>2-year non-renewable R01 .
Not so interested in that .
In addition , it really fucks things up for the regular cycle of grant submissions .
Expect , middle single digit success rates : ( for R01s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2-year non-renewable R01.
Not so interested in that.
In addition, it really fucks things up for the regular cycle of grant submissions.
Expect, middle single digit success rates :( for R01s.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30153206</id>
	<title>Re:This is all I've got to say about this.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257099300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nothing in your post does anything to contradict the original explanation. There are tens of thousands of projects receiving stimulus funding, and of course there will be some errors and oversights. Any large program will have that, but all that you've provided are a few barely sourced links that at most account for an infinitesimally small percentage of the spending. Given that this is all you have after months of public disclosure on stimulus spending, the only rational conclusion is that the program appears to be running very well. Percentage-wise, it's certainly running at a better loss ratio than any large project I've worked on at major private corporations.</p><p>As for the rest of your comment, here's a few tips. Don't go running around spamming links from far right websites like Hotair.com. No objective reader would be any more inclined to believe them than they are to take articles from DailyKos.com as gospel truth. And please, don't make insultingly hyperbolic claims about things like "the amazing failure of the stimulus." We had 3.5\% positive GDP growth in the last quarter, which every credible economist attributes primarily to the stimulus package. After all, it's the first positive GDP we've seen in over a year, the best we've seen in more than two, and has broken us out of one of the deepest recessions in our history.</p><p>You can certainly argue that the effects of the stimulus are temporary and not worth the long term effects of an increased deficit and higher inflation in the future. I wouldn't agree with you (and I doubt most mainstream economists would) but you can certainly make the argument and provide some evidence to support your position. However, you cannot credibly claim that the stimulus hasn't worked to improve the current state of the economy. Making such claims in defiance of all facts to the contrary is just asinine.</p></div><p>There hasn't been months of public disclosure on the stimulus. We're seeing the first of it now.</p><p>And if you believe there really was a 3.5\% growth in our GDP, well, you need to treat what you read with a bit more circumspection. 1.7 or 1.8\% of that was due to the CARS program, so lets throw that out off the top. Why throw it out? Because it merely pulled sales from another quarter, paid for cars that aren't even made here, or both. It's cooking the books, moving expenditures around from one quarter to another to mitigate a beating. It all reeks of Enron-style manipulation to put off the bad news. Now, to be fair, this is not unique to Obama and his administration. But it is unique for a president that campaigned on, and promised to uphold, a more open and transparent government.</p><p>This is failure, plain and simple. Failure to produce promised results and failure to document expenditures. And most economists would not agree with the position you're taking. Where are your citations? Even incompetent Tim Geithner knows the government can't keep up its deficit spending.</p><p>And where are the facts that the stimulus has helped the economy? That we haven't passed 8\% unemployment? Oh darn, we're at 10.2\% (really 16\%, but who's counting?). I agree that unemployment generally lags recovery, but that's not how the stimulus was pitched. I don't have to cite that - a simple Google or YouTube search will reveal Joe Biden fibbing to get it passed.</p><p>Please do your research before posting stuff like this. Posting that the stimulus is working is laughable enough, but going even further to excoriate another poster for his lack of citations while completely unable to provide your own is much worse.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing in your post does anything to contradict the original explanation .
There are tens of thousands of projects receiving stimulus funding , and of course there will be some errors and oversights .
Any large program will have that , but all that you 've provided are a few barely sourced links that at most account for an infinitesimally small percentage of the spending .
Given that this is all you have after months of public disclosure on stimulus spending , the only rational conclusion is that the program appears to be running very well .
Percentage-wise , it 's certainly running at a better loss ratio than any large project I 've worked on at major private corporations.As for the rest of your comment , here 's a few tips .
Do n't go running around spamming links from far right websites like Hotair.com .
No objective reader would be any more inclined to believe them than they are to take articles from DailyKos.com as gospel truth .
And please , do n't make insultingly hyperbolic claims about things like " the amazing failure of the stimulus .
" We had 3.5 \ % positive GDP growth in the last quarter , which every credible economist attributes primarily to the stimulus package .
After all , it 's the first positive GDP we 've seen in over a year , the best we 've seen in more than two , and has broken us out of one of the deepest recessions in our history.You can certainly argue that the effects of the stimulus are temporary and not worth the long term effects of an increased deficit and higher inflation in the future .
I would n't agree with you ( and I doubt most mainstream economists would ) but you can certainly make the argument and provide some evidence to support your position .
However , you can not credibly claim that the stimulus has n't worked to improve the current state of the economy .
Making such claims in defiance of all facts to the contrary is just asinine.There has n't been months of public disclosure on the stimulus .
We 're seeing the first of it now.And if you believe there really was a 3.5 \ % growth in our GDP , well , you need to treat what you read with a bit more circumspection .
1.7 or 1.8 \ % of that was due to the CARS program , so lets throw that out off the top .
Why throw it out ?
Because it merely pulled sales from another quarter , paid for cars that are n't even made here , or both .
It 's cooking the books , moving expenditures around from one quarter to another to mitigate a beating .
It all reeks of Enron-style manipulation to put off the bad news .
Now , to be fair , this is not unique to Obama and his administration .
But it is unique for a president that campaigned on , and promised to uphold , a more open and transparent government.This is failure , plain and simple .
Failure to produce promised results and failure to document expenditures .
And most economists would not agree with the position you 're taking .
Where are your citations ?
Even incompetent Tim Geithner knows the government ca n't keep up its deficit spending.And where are the facts that the stimulus has helped the economy ?
That we have n't passed 8 \ % unemployment ?
Oh darn , we 're at 10.2 \ % ( really 16 \ % , but who 's counting ? ) .
I agree that unemployment generally lags recovery , but that 's not how the stimulus was pitched .
I do n't have to cite that - a simple Google or YouTube search will reveal Joe Biden fibbing to get it passed.Please do your research before posting stuff like this .
Posting that the stimulus is working is laughable enough , but going even further to excoriate another poster for his lack of citations while completely unable to provide your own is much worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing in your post does anything to contradict the original explanation.
There are tens of thousands of projects receiving stimulus funding, and of course there will be some errors and oversights.
Any large program will have that, but all that you've provided are a few barely sourced links that at most account for an infinitesimally small percentage of the spending.
Given that this is all you have after months of public disclosure on stimulus spending, the only rational conclusion is that the program appears to be running very well.
Percentage-wise, it's certainly running at a better loss ratio than any large project I've worked on at major private corporations.As for the rest of your comment, here's a few tips.
Don't go running around spamming links from far right websites like Hotair.com.
No objective reader would be any more inclined to believe them than they are to take articles from DailyKos.com as gospel truth.
And please, don't make insultingly hyperbolic claims about things like "the amazing failure of the stimulus.
" We had 3.5\% positive GDP growth in the last quarter, which every credible economist attributes primarily to the stimulus package.
After all, it's the first positive GDP we've seen in over a year, the best we've seen in more than two, and has broken us out of one of the deepest recessions in our history.You can certainly argue that the effects of the stimulus are temporary and not worth the long term effects of an increased deficit and higher inflation in the future.
I wouldn't agree with you (and I doubt most mainstream economists would) but you can certainly make the argument and provide some evidence to support your position.
However, you cannot credibly claim that the stimulus hasn't worked to improve the current state of the economy.
Making such claims in defiance of all facts to the contrary is just asinine.There hasn't been months of public disclosure on the stimulus.
We're seeing the first of it now.And if you believe there really was a 3.5\% growth in our GDP, well, you need to treat what you read with a bit more circumspection.
1.7 or 1.8\% of that was due to the CARS program, so lets throw that out off the top.
Why throw it out?
Because it merely pulled sales from another quarter, paid for cars that aren't even made here, or both.
It's cooking the books, moving expenditures around from one quarter to another to mitigate a beating.
It all reeks of Enron-style manipulation to put off the bad news.
Now, to be fair, this is not unique to Obama and his administration.
But it is unique for a president that campaigned on, and promised to uphold, a more open and transparent government.This is failure, plain and simple.
Failure to produce promised results and failure to document expenditures.
And most economists would not agree with the position you're taking.
Where are your citations?
Even incompetent Tim Geithner knows the government can't keep up its deficit spending.And where are the facts that the stimulus has helped the economy?
That we haven't passed 8\% unemployment?
Oh darn, we're at 10.2\% (really 16\%, but who's counting?).
I agree that unemployment generally lags recovery, but that's not how the stimulus was pitched.
I don't have to cite that - a simple Google or YouTube search will reveal Joe Biden fibbing to get it passed.Please do your research before posting stuff like this.
Posting that the stimulus is working is laughable enough, but going even further to excoriate another poster for his lack of citations while completely unable to provide your own is much worse.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146578</id>
	<title>Re:Biased much?</title>
	<author>PenguinX</author>
	<datestamp>1257103140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess you don't read/watch/listen to much news do you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess you do n't read/watch/listen to much news do you : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess you don't read/watch/listen to much news do you :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144904</id>
	<title>Yea, right</title>
	<author>strikeleader</author>
	<datestamp>1257096240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Perhaps it's a sign of more government transparency in regards to spending"<br> <br>
ROTFLMAO..... with tears streaming from my eyes</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Perhaps it 's a sign of more government transparency in regards to spending " ROTFLMAO..... with tears streaming from my eyes</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Perhaps it's a sign of more government transparency in regards to spending" 
ROTFLMAO..... with tears streaming from my eyes</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145238</id>
	<title>Re:This is all I've got to say about this.</title>
	<author>jhoegl</author>
	<datestamp>1257097620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes it does...  The jobs do exist and you can find them via Zip code instead of district.  The reality was that there was no district fact checking and nothing more.  You want to blame anyone, blame the people that wrote down the false districts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes it does... The jobs do exist and you can find them via Zip code instead of district .
The reality was that there was no district fact checking and nothing more .
You want to blame anyone , blame the people that wrote down the false districts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes it does...  The jobs do exist and you can find them via Zip code instead of district.
The reality was that there was no district fact checking and nothing more.
You want to blame anyone, blame the people that wrote down the false districts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145182</id>
	<title>Shell Game</title>
	<author>Efialtis</author>
	<datestamp>1257097380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What I want to know is where all the money (millions, I hear) that supposedly went to Utah's 4th Congressional District (Utah only has 3 Congressional Districts)...</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I want to know is where all the money ( millions , I hear ) that supposedly went to Utah 's 4th Congressional District ( Utah only has 3 Congressional Districts ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I want to know is where all the money (millions, I hear) that supposedly went to Utah's 4th Congressional District (Utah only has 3 Congressional Districts)...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146324</id>
	<title>Re:This is all I've got to say about this.</title>
	<author>Gilmoure</author>
	<datestamp>1257102000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Folks on the inside know that the house of cards is coming down and are grabbing all that they can while they can?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Folks on the inside know that the house of cards is coming down and are grabbing all that they can while they can ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Folks on the inside know that the house of cards is coming down and are grabbing all that they can while they can?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145812</id>
	<title>Nothing compared to Military funding</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257100020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So the state of Wisconsin gets $81,000,000 for scientific research, but $2,700,000,000 to build <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oshkosh\_M-ATV" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">more trucks</a> [wikipedia.org] for a pointless war?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the state of Wisconsin gets $ 81,000,000 for scientific research , but $ 2,700,000,000 to build more trucks [ wikipedia.org ] for a pointless war ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the state of Wisconsin gets $81,000,000 for scientific research, but $2,700,000,000 to build more trucks [wikipedia.org] for a pointless war?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30148788</id>
	<title>Re:Back in February</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257070560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you work at a sausage factory, you're not inclined to look closely at the ingredients.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you work at a sausage factory , you 're not inclined to look closely at the ingredients .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you work at a sausage factory, you're not inclined to look closely at the ingredients.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146600</id>
	<title>Re:This is all I've got to say about this.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257103200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Florida the stimulus money is being used to keep the state government running. When it runs out...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Florida the stimulus money is being used to keep the state government running .
When it runs out.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Florida the stimulus money is being used to keep the state government running.
When it runs out...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145448</id>
	<title>Not very useful</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1257098400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All it told me about my state was the number of grants given and the dollar amount of grants in total. It didn't tell me anything at all about what they were given FOR or whom they were given TO. Not very useful in determining if any of it was money well spent, or money wasted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All it told me about my state was the number of grants given and the dollar amount of grants in total .
It did n't tell me anything at all about what they were given FOR or whom they were given TO .
Not very useful in determining if any of it was money well spent , or money wasted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All it told me about my state was the number of grants given and the dollar amount of grants in total.
It didn't tell me anything at all about what they were given FOR or whom they were given TO.
Not very useful in determining if any of it was money well spent, or money wasted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145878</id>
	<title>Sunglasses at the ready</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257100200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>from the we-blew-it-on-bubblegum dept.</p></div><p>Well clearly it wasn't spent on kicking ass.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>from the we-blew-it-on-bubblegum dept.Well clearly it was n't spent on kicking ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from the we-blew-it-on-bubblegum dept.Well clearly it wasn't spent on kicking ass.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30148624</id>
	<title>Re:Chicken or Egg?</title>
	<author>penrodyn</author>
	<datestamp>1257069720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you suggesting we shouldn't study how the stimulus money is being spent and what effect it might or might not have?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you suggesting we should n't study how the stimulus money is being spent and what effect it might or might not have ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you suggesting we shouldn't study how the stimulus money is being spent and what effect it might or might not have?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145754</id>
	<title>The grants section on the pie chart...</title>
	<author>Tybalt\_Capulet</author>
	<datestamp>1257099780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More than half a trillion dollars goes to 'grants'. Do these grants include making secret weapons of mass destruction? I think so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More than half a trillion dollars goes to 'grants' .
Do these grants include making secret weapons of mass destruction ?
I think so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More than half a trillion dollars goes to 'grants'.
Do these grants include making secret weapons of mass destruction?
I think so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30147658</id>
	<title>ha ha ha</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257108120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many scientists do they claim to have saved or created?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many scientists do they claim to have saved or created ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many scientists do they claim to have saved or created?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146226</id>
	<title>Re:Chicken or Egg?</title>
	<author>Colonel Korn</author>
	<datestamp>1257101640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You object to spending something like 0.01\% of the funding to evaluate how well the program worked and how to optimize government spending on science (which annually is much larger than the bit included in the stimulus bill) in the future?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You object to spending something like 0.01 \ % of the funding to evaluate how well the program worked and how to optimize government spending on science ( which annually is much larger than the bit included in the stimulus bill ) in the future ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You object to spending something like 0.01\% of the funding to evaluate how well the program worked and how to optimize government spending on science (which annually is much larger than the bit included in the stimulus bill) in the future?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30147376</id>
	<title>Not a damed thing ....</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1257106740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... in there about research on flying cars.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... in there about research on flying cars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... in there about research on flying cars.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144930</id>
	<title>Not a government site</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257096360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't a gov site. from the about us page:</p><p>ScienceWorksForUS is a joint effort of the Association of American Universities (AAU), the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU), and The Science Coalition (TSC) to demonstrate the impact of stimulus-funded university research activities across the country.</p><p>These are trade/lobbying organizations, not government agencies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't a gov site .
from the about us page : ScienceWorksForUS is a joint effort of the Association of American Universities ( AAU ) , the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities ( APLU ) , and The Science Coalition ( TSC ) to demonstrate the impact of stimulus-funded university research activities across the country.These are trade/lobbying organizations , not government agencies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't a gov site.
from the about us page:ScienceWorksForUS is a joint effort of the Association of American Universities (AAU), the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU), and The Science Coalition (TSC) to demonstrate the impact of stimulus-funded university research activities across the country.These are trade/lobbying organizations, not government agencies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145848</id>
	<title>my vote: propaganda</title>
	<author>(arg!)Styopa</author>
	<datestamp>1257100140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not sure why you'd bother to think that it's going to anything real, since the Fed seems to be ok with saving jobs and dumping money into DISTRICTS THAT DON'T EXIST.</p><p><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jobs-saved-created-congressional-districts-exist/story?id=9097853" title="go.com" rel="nofollow">http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jobs-saved-created-congressional-districts-exist/story?id=9097853</a> [go.com]</p><p>Guessed to be to the tune of $70+ BILLION so far.</p><p>"Change!" indeed.  I think Boss Tweed would find that amusing.  Daley might even be impressed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure why you 'd bother to think that it 's going to anything real , since the Fed seems to be ok with saving jobs and dumping money into DISTRICTS THAT DO N'T EXIST.http : //abcnews.go.com/Politics/jobs-saved-created-congressional-districts-exist/story ? id = 9097853 [ go.com ] Guessed to be to the tune of $ 70 + BILLION so far. " Change !
" indeed .
I think Boss Tweed would find that amusing .
Daley might even be impressed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure why you'd bother to think that it's going to anything real, since the Fed seems to be ok with saving jobs and dumping money into DISTRICTS THAT DON'T EXIST.http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jobs-saved-created-congressional-districts-exist/story?id=9097853 [go.com]Guessed to be to the tune of $70+ BILLION so far."Change!
" indeed.
I think Boss Tweed would find that amusing.
Daley might even be impressed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145938</id>
	<title>Re:This is all I've got to say about this.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257100380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is another option, coming from a software dork.  The software errors aren't of the coding nature but a more systemic problem.   Say an index was shifted in some table somewhere then everything that referenced it would be wrong.   Perhaps something of that nature.    And we are talking about some fairly complicated software with no working model to work from that was created fairly quickly.</p><p>It doesn't make it okay or right but let's be real,  this kind of crap happens in software.    More errors vs. a couple systemic errors?  It's a technicality,  the data in question appears to be faulty,  I'd expect more of it to be faulty too until the source of the problems is determined.</p><p>I'm not sure that the stimulus is claimed to have saved us from the brink so much as the vast moneys given to banks and auto companies by both republican and democrat administrations "saved us from the brink"  the stimulus was intended to stem climbing unemployment and it's been a failure at that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is another option , coming from a software dork .
The software errors are n't of the coding nature but a more systemic problem .
Say an index was shifted in some table somewhere then everything that referenced it would be wrong .
Perhaps something of that nature .
And we are talking about some fairly complicated software with no working model to work from that was created fairly quickly.It does n't make it okay or right but let 's be real , this kind of crap happens in software .
More errors vs. a couple systemic errors ?
It 's a technicality , the data in question appears to be faulty , I 'd expect more of it to be faulty too until the source of the problems is determined.I 'm not sure that the stimulus is claimed to have saved us from the brink so much as the vast moneys given to banks and auto companies by both republican and democrat administrations " saved us from the brink " the stimulus was intended to stem climbing unemployment and it 's been a failure at that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is another option, coming from a software dork.
The software errors aren't of the coding nature but a more systemic problem.
Say an index was shifted in some table somewhere then everything that referenced it would be wrong.
Perhaps something of that nature.
And we are talking about some fairly complicated software with no working model to work from that was created fairly quickly.It doesn't make it okay or right but let's be real,  this kind of crap happens in software.
More errors vs. a couple systemic errors?
It's a technicality,  the data in question appears to be faulty,  I'd expect more of it to be faulty too until the source of the problems is determined.I'm not sure that the stimulus is claimed to have saved us from the brink so much as the vast moneys given to banks and auto companies by both republican and democrat administrations "saved us from the brink"  the stimulus was intended to stem climbing unemployment and it's been a failure at that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145900</id>
	<title>Re:Biased much?</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1257100320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And yet, I presume you listened to mainstream media (CNN, ABC, etc) when they all decided that they didn't like Bush.</p><p>So in other words, your argument: I like Obama, and hotair (and similar journalists) doesn't.  Therefore, hotair (etc.) are wrong and I won't listen to them, because they obviously don't know the truth.</p><p>I am not so sure that the mainstream media who obviously like Obama are "fair" and "unbiased" in their "reporting" of things.  And it actually shocks me that CNN and ABC ran stories about the "jobs" created/saved not really being created/saved<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... on a large-scale, I might add, not just a few here and there.  It got very, very, VERY little reporting though.  In fact, Sarah Palin is getting far more [bad] publicity from the media than the false job reports.  Hmmmmmm.  A <i>former</i> governor that <i>lost</i> as a VP candidate is getting more coverage than the Obama administration's recovery.gov apparently lying about jobs created/saved by the much-debated stimulus package?  I'm sure it's because the media likes Palin and just wants to be nice to her.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet , I presume you listened to mainstream media ( CNN , ABC , etc ) when they all decided that they did n't like Bush.So in other words , your argument : I like Obama , and hotair ( and similar journalists ) does n't .
Therefore , hotair ( etc .
) are wrong and I wo n't listen to them , because they obviously do n't know the truth.I am not so sure that the mainstream media who obviously like Obama are " fair " and " unbiased " in their " reporting " of things .
And it actually shocks me that CNN and ABC ran stories about the " jobs " created/saved not really being created/saved ... on a large-scale , I might add , not just a few here and there .
It got very , very , VERY little reporting though .
In fact , Sarah Palin is getting far more [ bad ] publicity from the media than the false job reports .
Hmmmmmm. A former governor that lost as a VP candidate is getting more coverage than the Obama administration 's recovery.gov apparently lying about jobs created/saved by the much-debated stimulus package ?
I 'm sure it 's because the media likes Palin and just wants to be nice to her .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet, I presume you listened to mainstream media (CNN, ABC, etc) when they all decided that they didn't like Bush.So in other words, your argument: I like Obama, and hotair (and similar journalists) doesn't.
Therefore, hotair (etc.
) are wrong and I won't listen to them, because they obviously don't know the truth.I am not so sure that the mainstream media who obviously like Obama are "fair" and "unbiased" in their "reporting" of things.
And it actually shocks me that CNN and ABC ran stories about the "jobs" created/saved not really being created/saved ... on a large-scale, I might add, not just a few here and there.
It got very, very, VERY little reporting though.
In fact, Sarah Palin is getting far more [bad] publicity from the media than the false job reports.
Hmmmmmm.  A former governor that lost as a VP candidate is getting more coverage than the Obama administration's recovery.gov apparently lying about jobs created/saved by the much-debated stimulus package?
I'm sure it's because the media likes Palin and just wants to be nice to her.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144910</id>
	<title>Government spending</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1257096240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is very transparent. Most of it is published. Budgets are public.</p><p>While we always need more transparency, I am surprised how many people don't even know that budgets are published and kept in libraries.</p><p>What is better is letting people know where this data is, and also getting it online.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is very transparent .
Most of it is published .
Budgets are public.While we always need more transparency , I am surprised how many people do n't even know that budgets are published and kept in libraries.What is better is letting people know where this data is , and also getting it online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is very transparent.
Most of it is published.
Budgets are public.While we always need more transparency, I am surprised how many people don't even know that budgets are published and kept in libraries.What is better is letting people know where this data is, and also getting it online.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145140</id>
	<title>Re:This is all I've got to say about this.</title>
	<author>DaHat</author>
	<datestamp>1257097140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Such a convenient excuse (if true)... but still doesn't explain all of the fake jobs 'created or saved' in <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/archives/2009/10/21/porkulus-private-sector-jobs-saved-or-created-in-nh/" title="hotair.com" rel="nofollow">New Hampshire</a> [hotair.com], <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/archives/2009/10/29/ap-administration-overstated-stimulus-jobs/" title="hotair.com" rel="nofollow">Florida and Georgia</a> [hotair.com], <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/archives/2009/11/03/ohio-jobs-saved-or-created-werent-in-danger-at-all/" title="hotair.com" rel="nofollow">Ohio</a> [hotair.com], <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/archives/2009/11/05/bogus-porkulus-numbers-epidemic-hits-wisconsin-too/" title="hotair.com" rel="nofollow">Wisconsin</a> [hotair.com], <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jMNoef6xDenBbHWO0Im6rIjDmAgAD9BOJH300" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">New Jersey</a> [google.com], <a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/barackie\_madoff\_rescue\_nothing\_but\_5SDC8QYBq87hYrrmi9cvWM" title="nypost.com" rel="nofollow">Virginia</a> [nypost.com], <a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/103109dnbusstimulusjobs.3fc44d8.html" title="dallasnews.com" rel="nofollow">Texas</a> [dallasnews.com], <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/education/chi-education-stimulus-04-nov04,0,4659134.story" title="chicagotribune.com" rel="nofollow">Illinois</a> [chicagotribune.com], <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/archives/2009/11/11/more-porkulus-3-card-monte-in-colorado-washington" title="hotair.com" rel="nofollow">Colorado</a> [hotair.com], <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/archives/2009/11/11/more-porkulus-3-card-monte-in-colorado-washington" title="hotair.com" rel="nofollow">Washington</a> [hotair.com], <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/12/porkulus-job-numbers-wildly-exaggerated-boston-globe" title="hotair.com" rel="nofollow">Massachusetts</a> [hotair.com], <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/13/the-50-job-lawnmower-and-other-porkulus-job-fables" title="hotair.com" rel="nofollow">Arkansas</a> [hotair.com], <a href="http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&amp;title=Analysis+finds+stimulus+confusion+-+USATODAY.com&amp;expire=&amp;urlID=413980772&amp;fb=Y&amp;url=http\%3A\%2F\%2Fwww.usatoday.com\%2Fnews\%2Fwashington\%2F2009-11-02-stimjobs\_N.htm&amp;partnerID=1660" title="clickability.com" rel="nofollow">Connecticut</a> [clickability.com], or <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/16/porkulus-job-fables-in-michigan/" title="hotair.com" rel="nofollow">Michigan</a> [hotair.com].</p><p>Given the scope of the fakery going on... there are two options... even more errors, or a deliberate attempt to cook the books.</p><p>Giving the amazing failure of the stimulus... the latter is far more likely given the continued delusional claims that it saved us from the brink... instead it is setting us up for a double dip and massive inflation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Such a convenient excuse ( if true ) ... but still does n't explain all of the fake jobs 'created or saved ' in New Hampshire [ hotair.com ] , Florida and Georgia [ hotair.com ] , Ohio [ hotair.com ] , Wisconsin [ hotair.com ] , New Jersey [ google.com ] , Virginia [ nypost.com ] , Texas [ dallasnews.com ] , Illinois [ chicagotribune.com ] , Colorado [ hotair.com ] , Washington [ hotair.com ] , Massachusetts [ hotair.com ] , Arkansas [ hotair.com ] , Connecticut [ clickability.com ] , or Michigan [ hotair.com ] .Given the scope of the fakery going on... there are two options... even more errors , or a deliberate attempt to cook the books.Giving the amazing failure of the stimulus... the latter is far more likely given the continued delusional claims that it saved us from the brink... instead it is setting us up for a double dip and massive inflation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Such a convenient excuse (if true)... but still doesn't explain all of the fake jobs 'created or saved' in New Hampshire [hotair.com], Florida and Georgia [hotair.com], Ohio [hotair.com], Wisconsin [hotair.com], New Jersey [google.com], Virginia [nypost.com], Texas [dallasnews.com], Illinois [chicagotribune.com], Colorado [hotair.com], Washington [hotair.com], Massachusetts [hotair.com], Arkansas [hotair.com], Connecticut [clickability.com], or Michigan [hotair.com].Given the scope of the fakery going on... there are two options... even more errors, or a deliberate attempt to cook the books.Giving the amazing failure of the stimulus... the latter is far more likely given the continued delusional claims that it saved us from the brink... instead it is setting us up for a double dip and massive inflation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146808</id>
	<title>Re:This is all I've got to say about this.</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1257104040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the article linked to for NJ (which has nothing to do with NJ, btw -- are you trolling, assuming no one would click your links?) -- (emphasis mine)<blockquote><div><p>At Southwest Georgia Community Action Council in Moultrie, Ga., director Myrtis Mulkey-Ndawula said she followed the guidelines the Obama administration provided. <b>She said she multiplied the 508 employees by 1.84 -- the percentage pay raise they received -- and came up with 935 jobs saved.</b></p></div> </blockquote><p>You can't help idiocy.  This idiot multiplied 508 by 1.84 instead of by 0.0184.  People make stupid mistakes, and the failure here is that no one checked it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article linked to for NJ ( which has nothing to do with NJ , btw -- are you trolling , assuming no one would click your links ?
) -- ( emphasis mine ) At Southwest Georgia Community Action Council in Moultrie , Ga. , director Myrtis Mulkey-Ndawula said she followed the guidelines the Obama administration provided .
She said she multiplied the 508 employees by 1.84 -- the percentage pay raise they received -- and came up with 935 jobs saved .
You ca n't help idiocy .
This idiot multiplied 508 by 1.84 instead of by 0.0184 .
People make stupid mistakes , and the failure here is that no one checked it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article linked to for NJ (which has nothing to do with NJ, btw -- are you trolling, assuming no one would click your links?
) -- (emphasis mine)At Southwest Georgia Community Action Council in Moultrie, Ga., director Myrtis Mulkey-Ndawula said she followed the guidelines the Obama administration provided.
She said she multiplied the 508 employees by 1.84 -- the percentage pay raise they received -- and came up with 935 jobs saved.
You can't help idiocy.
This idiot multiplied 508 by 1.84 instead of by 0.0184.
People make stupid mistakes, and the failure here is that no one checked it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145520</id>
	<title>Chicken or Egg?</title>
	<author>cyberElvis</author>
	<datestamp>1257098640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A quick look at the site, and I found this: <a href="http://www.scienceworksforus.org/virginia/u-va-receives-grant-to-study-effect-of-federal-stimulus-on-science-and-engineering-jobs" title="scienceworksforus.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.scienceworksforus.org/virginia/u-va-receives-grant-to-study-effect-of-federal-stimulus-on-science-and-engineering-jobs</a> [scienceworksforus.org]<br>Stimulus money to study the effect of stimulus money!</p><p>Sure let's just keep printing money!  I am sure the value of the dollar won't go down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A quick look at the site , and I found this : http : //www.scienceworksforus.org/virginia/u-va-receives-grant-to-study-effect-of-federal-stimulus-on-science-and-engineering-jobs [ scienceworksforus.org ] Stimulus money to study the effect of stimulus money ! Sure let 's just keep printing money !
I am sure the value of the dollar wo n't go down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A quick look at the site, and I found this: http://www.scienceworksforus.org/virginia/u-va-receives-grant-to-study-effect-of-federal-stimulus-on-science-and-engineering-jobs [scienceworksforus.org]Stimulus money to study the effect of stimulus money!Sure let's just keep printing money!
I am sure the value of the dollar won't go down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145248</id>
	<title>Biased much?</title>
	<author>spun</author>
	<datestamp>1257097680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, I can't trust any web site with that much obvious bias. hotair.com has obviously decided that Obama sucks, and they will do anything to prove it. I've yet to see anything logical or factual from the Obama haters. Not that I've had any high expectations for Obama, but these loons seem to think he kills old people by throwing babies at them, holds seances to talk to Lenin's ghost, and farts demons. It's hilarious to watch loons like you writhe about in abject terror over the coming End of America.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , I ca n't trust any web site with that much obvious bias .
hotair.com has obviously decided that Obama sucks , and they will do anything to prove it .
I 've yet to see anything logical or factual from the Obama haters .
Not that I 've had any high expectations for Obama , but these loons seem to think he kills old people by throwing babies at them , holds seances to talk to Lenin 's ghost , and farts demons .
It 's hilarious to watch loons like you writhe about in abject terror over the coming End of America .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, I can't trust any web site with that much obvious bias.
hotair.com has obviously decided that Obama sucks, and they will do anything to prove it.
I've yet to see anything logical or factual from the Obama haters.
Not that I've had any high expectations for Obama, but these loons seem to think he kills old people by throwing babies at them, holds seances to talk to Lenin's ghost, and farts demons.
It's hilarious to watch loons like you writhe about in abject terror over the coming End of America.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145752</id>
	<title>Re:This is all I've got to say about this.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257099780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing in your post does anything to contradict the original explanation. There are tens of thousands of projects receiving stimulus funding, and of course there will be some errors and oversights. Any large program will have that, but all that you've provided are a few barely sourced links that at most account for an infinitesimally small percentage of the spending. Given that this is all you have after months of public disclosure on stimulus spending, the only rational conclusion is that the program appears to be running very well. Percentage-wise, it's certainly running at a better loss ratio than any large project I've worked on at major private corporations.</p><p>As for the rest of your comment, here's a few tips. Don't go running around spamming links from far right websites like Hotair.com. No objective reader would be any more inclined to believe them than they are to take articles from DailyKos.com as gospel truth. And please, don't make insultingly hyperbolic claims about things like "the amazing failure of the stimulus." We had 3.5\% positive GDP growth in the last quarter, which every credible economist attributes primarily to the stimulus package. After all, it's the first positive GDP we've seen in over a year, the best we've seen in more than two, and has broken us out of one of the deepest recessions in our history.</p><p>You can certainly argue that the effects of the stimulus are temporary and not worth the long term effects of an increased deficit and higher inflation in the future. I wouldn't agree with you (and I doubt most mainstream economists would) but you can certainly make the argument and provide some evidence to support your position. However, you cannot credibly claim that the stimulus hasn't worked to improve the current state of the economy. Making such claims in defiance of all facts to the contrary is just asinine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing in your post does anything to contradict the original explanation .
There are tens of thousands of projects receiving stimulus funding , and of course there will be some errors and oversights .
Any large program will have that , but all that you 've provided are a few barely sourced links that at most account for an infinitesimally small percentage of the spending .
Given that this is all you have after months of public disclosure on stimulus spending , the only rational conclusion is that the program appears to be running very well .
Percentage-wise , it 's certainly running at a better loss ratio than any large project I 've worked on at major private corporations.As for the rest of your comment , here 's a few tips .
Do n't go running around spamming links from far right websites like Hotair.com .
No objective reader would be any more inclined to believe them than they are to take articles from DailyKos.com as gospel truth .
And please , do n't make insultingly hyperbolic claims about things like " the amazing failure of the stimulus .
" We had 3.5 \ % positive GDP growth in the last quarter , which every credible economist attributes primarily to the stimulus package .
After all , it 's the first positive GDP we 've seen in over a year , the best we 've seen in more than two , and has broken us out of one of the deepest recessions in our history.You can certainly argue that the effects of the stimulus are temporary and not worth the long term effects of an increased deficit and higher inflation in the future .
I would n't agree with you ( and I doubt most mainstream economists would ) but you can certainly make the argument and provide some evidence to support your position .
However , you can not credibly claim that the stimulus has n't worked to improve the current state of the economy .
Making such claims in defiance of all facts to the contrary is just asinine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing in your post does anything to contradict the original explanation.
There are tens of thousands of projects receiving stimulus funding, and of course there will be some errors and oversights.
Any large program will have that, but all that you've provided are a few barely sourced links that at most account for an infinitesimally small percentage of the spending.
Given that this is all you have after months of public disclosure on stimulus spending, the only rational conclusion is that the program appears to be running very well.
Percentage-wise, it's certainly running at a better loss ratio than any large project I've worked on at major private corporations.As for the rest of your comment, here's a few tips.
Don't go running around spamming links from far right websites like Hotair.com.
No objective reader would be any more inclined to believe them than they are to take articles from DailyKos.com as gospel truth.
And please, don't make insultingly hyperbolic claims about things like "the amazing failure of the stimulus.
" We had 3.5\% positive GDP growth in the last quarter, which every credible economist attributes primarily to the stimulus package.
After all, it's the first positive GDP we've seen in over a year, the best we've seen in more than two, and has broken us out of one of the deepest recessions in our history.You can certainly argue that the effects of the stimulus are temporary and not worth the long term effects of an increased deficit and higher inflation in the future.
I wouldn't agree with you (and I doubt most mainstream economists would) but you can certainly make the argument and provide some evidence to support your position.
However, you cannot credibly claim that the stimulus hasn't worked to improve the current state of the economy.
Making such claims in defiance of all facts to the contrary is just asinine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146224</id>
	<title>Back in February</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257101640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in February after the Stimulus Bill was passed, I was flying from Washington DC to Raleigh Durham.  Onboard the plane were two congressmen, one so myopic that he literally had to read things two inches from his nose.  This is with glasses too.  You couldn't help but overhear how proud they were of passing the legislation but what was funny is that both of them were commenting on specific parts of it and each passing back pages of the legislation back and forth.</p><p>"Did you know that was in there?"</p><p>"Hey, what about this?  What's that for?"</p><p>Mind you both of these idiots, er uhm, illustrious members of the house voted yes and they didn't read it through.</p><p>Sad Really..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in February after the Stimulus Bill was passed , I was flying from Washington DC to Raleigh Durham .
Onboard the plane were two congressmen , one so myopic that he literally had to read things two inches from his nose .
This is with glasses too .
You could n't help but overhear how proud they were of passing the legislation but what was funny is that both of them were commenting on specific parts of it and each passing back pages of the legislation back and forth .
" Did you know that was in there ?
" " Hey , what about this ?
What 's that for ?
" Mind you both of these idiots , er uhm , illustrious members of the house voted yes and they did n't read it through.Sad Really. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in February after the Stimulus Bill was passed, I was flying from Washington DC to Raleigh Durham.
Onboard the plane were two congressmen, one so myopic that he literally had to read things two inches from his nose.
This is with glasses too.
You couldn't help but overhear how proud they were of passing the legislation but what was funny is that both of them were commenting on specific parts of it and each passing back pages of the legislation back and forth.
"Did you know that was in there?
""Hey, what about this?
What's that for?
"Mind you both of these idiots, er uhm, illustrious members of the house voted yes and they didn't read it through.Sad Really..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30148912</id>
	<title>Re:This is all I've got to say about this.</title>
	<author>ShatteredArm</author>
	<datestamp>1257071220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We had 3.5\% positive GDP growth in the last quarter, which every credible economist attributes primarily to the stimulus package. After all, it's the first positive GDP we've seen in over a year, the best we've seen in more than two, and has broken us out of one of the deepest recessions in our history.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Looking at GDP in this context is useless.  It's no different than me borrowing $10k, spending it, and saying I'm $10k more productive because I spend $10k more.  It has no bearing on anybody's wellbeing.<br> <br>

It begins to become a little more clear when you back out direct government spending increases and the cash-for-clunkers debacle.  Removing just those two government stimuli yields a negative GDP, meaning there was zero intrinsic economic growth in the third quarter.<br> <br>

At any rate, it seems that pretty much every financial analyst out there now is calling for a double-dip recession.  And it's not just limited to rogue bloggers; CNBC analysts, who are usually perma-bulls, are starting to call for a double-dip recession.  If and when that happens, we'll have made ourselves no better off by printing all that money, except our money will be worth even less and we'll be even harder pressed to manage a durable recovery due to even more wealth having been stripped from the middle class.  But this is what we get when we listen to "credible" government-sponsored economists.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We had 3.5 \ % positive GDP growth in the last quarter , which every credible economist attributes primarily to the stimulus package .
After all , it 's the first positive GDP we 've seen in over a year , the best we 've seen in more than two , and has broken us out of one of the deepest recessions in our history .
Looking at GDP in this context is useless .
It 's no different than me borrowing $ 10k , spending it , and saying I 'm $ 10k more productive because I spend $ 10k more .
It has no bearing on anybody 's wellbeing .
It begins to become a little more clear when you back out direct government spending increases and the cash-for-clunkers debacle .
Removing just those two government stimuli yields a negative GDP , meaning there was zero intrinsic economic growth in the third quarter .
At any rate , it seems that pretty much every financial analyst out there now is calling for a double-dip recession .
And it 's not just limited to rogue bloggers ; CNBC analysts , who are usually perma-bulls , are starting to call for a double-dip recession .
If and when that happens , we 'll have made ourselves no better off by printing all that money , except our money will be worth even less and we 'll be even harder pressed to manage a durable recovery due to even more wealth having been stripped from the middle class .
But this is what we get when we listen to " credible " government-sponsored economists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We had 3.5\% positive GDP growth in the last quarter, which every credible economist attributes primarily to the stimulus package.
After all, it's the first positive GDP we've seen in over a year, the best we've seen in more than two, and has broken us out of one of the deepest recessions in our history.
Looking at GDP in this context is useless.
It's no different than me borrowing $10k, spending it, and saying I'm $10k more productive because I spend $10k more.
It has no bearing on anybody's wellbeing.
It begins to become a little more clear when you back out direct government spending increases and the cash-for-clunkers debacle.
Removing just those two government stimuli yields a negative GDP, meaning there was zero intrinsic economic growth in the third quarter.
At any rate, it seems that pretty much every financial analyst out there now is calling for a double-dip recession.
And it's not just limited to rogue bloggers; CNBC analysts, who are usually perma-bulls, are starting to call for a double-dip recession.
If and when that happens, we'll have made ourselves no better off by printing all that money, except our money will be worth even less and we'll be even harder pressed to manage a durable recovery due to even more wealth having been stripped from the middle class.
But this is what we get when we listen to "credible" government-sponsored economists.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30147212</id>
	<title>Re:Biased much?</title>
	<author>dan\_sdot</author>
	<datestamp>1257106020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>To be honest, I find it a bit disturbing that you could simply dismiss the OP's links because you don't like the website they came from.  This really highlights the growing trend of the absolute polarization of American politics.
<br> <br>
Of course hotair is super conservative, but what does that have to do with what is said?  There are facts, citations, and original documents in those posts that the OP put up, and that conservative hotair commentator uses those facts to try to illustrate a point.  Maybe it is a dumb point.  Maybe the hotair author cherry-picked his facts.  But what is the harm in reading it?
<br> <br>
You should be able to read Paul Krugman, then read Charles Krauthammer, then read hotair, then read dailykos, and do so without dismissing any of them out of hand because they "have a bias".  Of course they do.  That is the whole point.  That's why people read them.
<br> <br>
I think this trend of political polarization in current American politics is awful.  Talk about closed-mindedness.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To be honest , I find it a bit disturbing that you could simply dismiss the OP 's links because you do n't like the website they came from .
This really highlights the growing trend of the absolute polarization of American politics .
Of course hotair is super conservative , but what does that have to do with what is said ?
There are facts , citations , and original documents in those posts that the OP put up , and that conservative hotair commentator uses those facts to try to illustrate a point .
Maybe it is a dumb point .
Maybe the hotair author cherry-picked his facts .
But what is the harm in reading it ?
You should be able to read Paul Krugman , then read Charles Krauthammer , then read hotair , then read dailykos , and do so without dismissing any of them out of hand because they " have a bias " .
Of course they do .
That is the whole point .
That 's why people read them .
I think this trend of political polarization in current American politics is awful .
Talk about closed-mindedness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be honest, I find it a bit disturbing that you could simply dismiss the OP's links because you don't like the website they came from.
This really highlights the growing trend of the absolute polarization of American politics.
Of course hotair is super conservative, but what does that have to do with what is said?
There are facts, citations, and original documents in those posts that the OP put up, and that conservative hotair commentator uses those facts to try to illustrate a point.
Maybe it is a dumb point.
Maybe the hotair author cherry-picked his facts.
But what is the harm in reading it?
You should be able to read Paul Krugman, then read Charles Krauthammer, then read hotair, then read dailykos, and do so without dismissing any of them out of hand because they "have a bias".
Of course they do.
That is the whole point.
That's why people read them.
I think this trend of political polarization in current American politics is awful.
Talk about closed-mindedness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30149524</id>
	<title>Re:This is all I've got to say about this.</title>
	<author>eh2o</author>
	<datestamp>1257074220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To calculate "jobs saved" (whatever the hell that means) the correct factor would be 1.0184.  0.0184 would give you "jobs gained".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To calculate " jobs saved " ( whatever the hell that means ) the correct factor would be 1.0184 .
0.0184 would give you " jobs gained " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To calculate "jobs saved" (whatever the hell that means) the correct factor would be 1.0184.
0.0184 would give you "jobs gained".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146826</id>
	<title>amazingly...</title>
	<author>mikeee</author>
	<datestamp>1257104100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It turns out that the most efficient type of stimulus spending is spending on studies of stimulus spending.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It turns out that the most efficient type of stimulus spending is spending on studies of stimulus spending .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It turns out that the most efficient type of stimulus spending is spending on studies of stimulus spending.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145640</id>
	<title>Re:Stimulus Funding</title>
	<author>Schickeneder</author>
	<datestamp>1257099120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our lab submitted the grant just in time! Now we only need to sit around and wait for the check from Obama's pocketbook.</p><p>We already had a grant in the works, but once we found out about the stimulus money, quickly switched to one of these other special grants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our lab submitted the grant just in time !
Now we only need to sit around and wait for the check from Obama 's pocketbook.We already had a grant in the works , but once we found out about the stimulus money , quickly switched to one of these other special grants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our lab submitted the grant just in time!
Now we only need to sit around and wait for the check from Obama's pocketbook.We already had a grant in the works, but once we found out about the stimulus money, quickly switched to one of these other special grants.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144684</id>
	<title>This is all I've got to say about this.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257095280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exclusive: Jobs 'Saved or Created' in Congressional Districts That Don't Exist
<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jobs-saved-created-congressional-districts-exist/story?id=9097853" title="go.com" rel="nofollow">http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jobs-saved-created-congressional-districts-exist/story?id=9097853</a> [go.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exclusive : Jobs 'Saved or Created ' in Congressional Districts That Do n't Exist http : //abcnews.go.com/Politics/jobs-saved-created-congressional-districts-exist/story ? id = 9097853 [ go.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exclusive: Jobs 'Saved or Created' in Congressional Districts That Don't Exist
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jobs-saved-created-congressional-districts-exist/story?id=9097853 [go.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30150710</id>
	<title>Re:This is all I've got to say about this.</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1257079380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You can't help idiocy. This idiot multiplied 508 by 1.84 instead of by 0.0184. People make stupid mistakes, and the failure here is that no one checked it.</p></div></blockquote><p>NO, the failure here is the assumption that a 1.84\% pay raise for 504 people has any relation to jobs "saved".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't help idiocy .
This idiot multiplied 508 by 1.84 instead of by 0.0184 .
People make stupid mistakes , and the failure here is that no one checked it.NO , the failure here is the assumption that a 1.84 \ % pay raise for 504 people has any relation to jobs " saved " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't help idiocy.
This idiot multiplied 508 by 1.84 instead of by 0.0184.
People make stupid mistakes, and the failure here is that no one checked it.NO, the failure here is the assumption that a 1.84\% pay raise for 504 people has any relation to jobs "saved".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145888</id>
	<title>Responsive Team</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257100260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, I checked out my state quickly, and noticed that my university was <a href="http://www.scienceworksforus.org/index.php?option=com\_states&amp;state=ME&amp;Itemid=7" title="scienceworksforus.org">listed</a> [scienceworksforus.org], for a grant I'd heard about a couple months ago. However, the link to my university's home page was incorrect; it was to a domain that wasn't even registered.<br>
<br>
So I used the easily found feedback form to quickly point it out, figuring I'd forget about it later today and never find out or really care if the link was fixed. 18 minutes later I got an email thanking me and saying they'd fix it today. Then 4 minutes later I got another email from a different person saying it was fixed. I refreshed the page, and the link was good.<br>
<br>
I know this is one, small incident. But I think it's evidence of a highly responsive, competent, and organized team (technical or support, I'm not sure). I think this indicates that if the upper people and committees allow for it, this web site can do Good Things.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , I checked out my state quickly , and noticed that my university was listed [ scienceworksforus.org ] , for a grant I 'd heard about a couple months ago .
However , the link to my university 's home page was incorrect ; it was to a domain that was n't even registered .
So I used the easily found feedback form to quickly point it out , figuring I 'd forget about it later today and never find out or really care if the link was fixed .
18 minutes later I got an email thanking me and saying they 'd fix it today .
Then 4 minutes later I got another email from a different person saying it was fixed .
I refreshed the page , and the link was good .
I know this is one , small incident .
But I think it 's evidence of a highly responsive , competent , and organized team ( technical or support , I 'm not sure ) .
I think this indicates that if the upper people and committees allow for it , this web site can do Good Things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, I checked out my state quickly, and noticed that my university was listed [scienceworksforus.org], for a grant I'd heard about a couple months ago.
However, the link to my university's home page was incorrect; it was to a domain that wasn't even registered.
So I used the easily found feedback form to quickly point it out, figuring I'd forget about it later today and never find out or really care if the link was fixed.
18 minutes later I got an email thanking me and saying they'd fix it today.
Then 4 minutes later I got another email from a different person saying it was fixed.
I refreshed the page, and the link was good.
I know this is one, small incident.
But I think it's evidence of a highly responsive, competent, and organized team (technical or support, I'm not sure).
I think this indicates that if the upper people and committees allow for it, this web site can do Good Things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146940</id>
	<title>Re:This is all I've got to say about this.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257104640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>credible economist</p></div><p>Holy shit, THEY FOUND ONE?!?!</p><p>Who is he?!  Or she...??</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>credible economistHoly shit , THEY FOUND ONE ? ! ?
! Who is he ? !
Or she... ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>credible economistHoly shit, THEY FOUND ONE?!?
!Who is he?!
Or she...?
?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146370</id>
	<title>Re:Biased much?</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1257102180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it funny how people never include Fox News when they say "mainstream media".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it funny how people never include Fox News when they say " mainstream media " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it funny how people never include Fox News when they say "mainstream media".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145298</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward posts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257097800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can tell you, as someone who works at a higher education institution, that if this money is appropriated as Contracts &amp; Grants monies or "Sponsored Research", which it most likely has if given to any Universities/Colleges, then there is A LOT of accounting going on with each dollar spent. The first portion of stimulus money given to my institution was first reported only a couple weeks back.</p><p>What people fail to understand is that this money takes time to find it's final recipients to be spent. There's still a significant portion of stimulus money at my institution that is awaiting to be spent by its deadline: June 30th, 2010.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can tell you , as someone who works at a higher education institution , that if this money is appropriated as Contracts &amp; Grants monies or " Sponsored Research " , which it most likely has if given to any Universities/Colleges , then there is A LOT of accounting going on with each dollar spent .
The first portion of stimulus money given to my institution was first reported only a couple weeks back.What people fail to understand is that this money takes time to find it 's final recipients to be spent .
There 's still a significant portion of stimulus money at my institution that is awaiting to be spent by its deadline : June 30th , 2010 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can tell you, as someone who works at a higher education institution, that if this money is appropriated as Contracts &amp; Grants monies or "Sponsored Research", which it most likely has if given to any Universities/Colleges, then there is A LOT of accounting going on with each dollar spent.
The first portion of stimulus money given to my institution was first reported only a couple weeks back.What people fail to understand is that this money takes time to find it's final recipients to be spent.
There's still a significant portion of stimulus money at my institution that is awaiting to be spent by its deadline: June 30th, 2010.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146360</id>
	<title>Re:This is all I've got to say about this.</title>
	<author>Ogive17</author>
	<datestamp>1257102120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While the public works projects are probably helping to save jobs, I only need to drive a block from work to see how the money is being wasted.<br>
<br>
Recently a very short portion of a road was repaved (1/4 mile at most).  The road gets little traffic, at the end of the 1/4 mile you're in the country flanked by two corn fields.  There are a couple of small businesses in that section.  The road before was not in the best condition, but I've seen much worse.<br>
<br>
Ok, they paved the road.  Then they put up a 20'x20' sign saying how this improvement was paid with money from the Recover Act.  So damn stupid.  I'm willing to bet the DOT workers in the sign shop weren't a threat to lose their jobs.  So it's not like making that sign helped with that.<br>
<br>
It's like a company that donates $20,000 to a charity then spends $50,000 to advertise it in the media.  Gov't shouldn't be 'bragging' about spending money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While the public works projects are probably helping to save jobs , I only need to drive a block from work to see how the money is being wasted .
Recently a very short portion of a road was repaved ( 1/4 mile at most ) .
The road gets little traffic , at the end of the 1/4 mile you 're in the country flanked by two corn fields .
There are a couple of small businesses in that section .
The road before was not in the best condition , but I 've seen much worse .
Ok , they paved the road .
Then they put up a 20'x20 ' sign saying how this improvement was paid with money from the Recover Act .
So damn stupid .
I 'm willing to bet the DOT workers in the sign shop were n't a threat to lose their jobs .
So it 's not like making that sign helped with that .
It 's like a company that donates $ 20,000 to a charity then spends $ 50,000 to advertise it in the media .
Gov't should n't be 'bragging ' about spending money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the public works projects are probably helping to save jobs, I only need to drive a block from work to see how the money is being wasted.
Recently a very short portion of a road was repaved (1/4 mile at most).
The road gets little traffic, at the end of the 1/4 mile you're in the country flanked by two corn fields.
There are a couple of small businesses in that section.
The road before was not in the best condition, but I've seen much worse.
Ok, they paved the road.
Then they put up a 20'x20' sign saying how this improvement was paid with money from the Recover Act.
So damn stupid.
I'm willing to bet the DOT workers in the sign shop weren't a threat to lose their jobs.
So it's not like making that sign helped with that.
It's like a company that donates $20,000 to a charity then spends $50,000 to advertise it in the media.
Gov't shouldn't be 'bragging' about spending money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30147410</id>
	<title>Re:This is all I've got to say about this.</title>
	<author>Maxwell'sSilverLART</author>
	<datestamp>1257106980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, well, that explains everything.  Certainly we should trust all of the data that's not obviously in error--after all, just because the people entering data (and presumably the people proofreading it) didn't realize that districts like the 69th, 86th, and 99th don't exist in any state in the Union, and that anybody who has ever watched a Presidential election could figure it out trivially, doesn't mean that we can't trust the facts and figures they've published that <i>don't</i> have such obvious sanity checks.</p><p>Of course, it would take a little more critical thinking to realize that saving 5,000 with only $42,000 means that Talladega County was able to save jobs at a cost of only $8.40 per.  But we're supposed to trust the accuracy of data from people who <i>didn't</i> realize that?</p><p>Sorry, but their credibility is shot.  You simply can't make mistakes that obvious, then turn around and expect people to believe statements that aren't independently verifiable (and verified).</p><p>That said, though, if you <i>are</i> the kind of person who believe such things, I've a bridge for sale.  I'll even cut you a special deal, but it's just between you and me, okay?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , well , that explains everything .
Certainly we should trust all of the data that 's not obviously in error--after all , just because the people entering data ( and presumably the people proofreading it ) did n't realize that districts like the 69th , 86th , and 99th do n't exist in any state in the Union , and that anybody who has ever watched a Presidential election could figure it out trivially , does n't mean that we ca n't trust the facts and figures they 've published that do n't have such obvious sanity checks.Of course , it would take a little more critical thinking to realize that saving 5,000 with only $ 42,000 means that Talladega County was able to save jobs at a cost of only $ 8.40 per .
But we 're supposed to trust the accuracy of data from people who did n't realize that ? Sorry , but their credibility is shot .
You simply ca n't make mistakes that obvious , then turn around and expect people to believe statements that are n't independently verifiable ( and verified ) .That said , though , if you are the kind of person who believe such things , I 've a bridge for sale .
I 'll even cut you a special deal , but it 's just between you and me , okay ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, well, that explains everything.
Certainly we should trust all of the data that's not obviously in error--after all, just because the people entering data (and presumably the people proofreading it) didn't realize that districts like the 69th, 86th, and 99th don't exist in any state in the Union, and that anybody who has ever watched a Presidential election could figure it out trivially, doesn't mean that we can't trust the facts and figures they've published that don't have such obvious sanity checks.Of course, it would take a little more critical thinking to realize that saving 5,000 with only $42,000 means that Talladega County was able to save jobs at a cost of only $8.40 per.
But we're supposed to trust the accuracy of data from people who didn't realize that?Sorry, but their credibility is shot.
You simply can't make mistakes that obvious, then turn around and expect people to believe statements that aren't independently verifiable (and verified).That said, though, if you are the kind of person who believe such things, I've a bridge for sale.
I'll even cut you a special deal, but it's just between you and me, okay?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30147290</id>
	<title>Improved Internet Info and Communication</title>
	<author>gpronger</author>
	<datestamp>1257106320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been employed within the environmental industry, and there is a marked improvement in availability of information from the Federal government since Obama in terms of both what is available on their websites and the implementation of email updates on regulatory changes, proposals, research, etc.<br> <br>
Just the improved information availability is a significant improvement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been employed within the environmental industry , and there is a marked improvement in availability of information from the Federal government since Obama in terms of both what is available on their websites and the implementation of email updates on regulatory changes , proposals , research , etc .
Just the improved information availability is a significant improvement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been employed within the environmental industry, and there is a marked improvement in availability of information from the Federal government since Obama in terms of both what is available on their websites and the implementation of email updates on regulatory changes, proposals, research, etc.
Just the improved information availability is a significant improvement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30147200</id>
	<title>Re:Government spending</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257105900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cue Hitchhiker's Guide &amp; its part on published governmental plans in 5, 4, 3, 2...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cue Hitchhiker 's Guide &amp; its part on published governmental plans in 5 , 4 , 3 , 2.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cue Hitchhiker's Guide &amp; its part on published governmental plans in 5, 4, 3, 2...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30147280</id>
	<title>Re:Biased much?</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1257106320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree that a lot of the Obama hate seems way out in left field, but I also am sorely disappointed by the contrast between what was 'sold' and what we 'got'.  I think that this is likely the basis for the fervor.  Either personal disappointment, or more likely disillusionment around how someone could actually 'like' him.</p><p>On the other hand, it isn't all totally baseless, either.  As a minor example of some hate that is true (that honestly surprised me): It is in fact true that he does not make a habit out of putting his hand over his heart when it would be respectful and customary.  This is 'okay' for a non-leader or a mere citizen, to be sure, but this is decidedly not okay for the PUSA.  It also seems way out of character for someone who ran such a masterful campaign to consistently make such a stupid, stupid error.</p><p>Now, in that light, if you're tempted to dismiss this observation as unimportant, I'd ask you to look at your own bias as well.  Its a tiny example, admittedly, but also extremely easy to remedy.  If you might be willing to apologize for President Obama in this oversight, ask yourself why...</p><p>GWB is thought to have been responsible for all our last decade's mistakes.  How then is it that replacing him with a nearly messianic leader doesn't seem to have repaired very much?  Instead we have the commander in chief that forgets to salute the flag.  How does this happen, and are we sure that this 'better' leader will result in a 'better' America?</p><p>I think what you are seeing as the lack of anything 'logical or factual' is probably a product of this situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that a lot of the Obama hate seems way out in left field , but I also am sorely disappointed by the contrast between what was 'sold ' and what we 'got' .
I think that this is likely the basis for the fervor .
Either personal disappointment , or more likely disillusionment around how someone could actually 'like ' him.On the other hand , it is n't all totally baseless , either .
As a minor example of some hate that is true ( that honestly surprised me ) : It is in fact true that he does not make a habit out of putting his hand over his heart when it would be respectful and customary .
This is 'okay ' for a non-leader or a mere citizen , to be sure , but this is decidedly not okay for the PUSA .
It also seems way out of character for someone who ran such a masterful campaign to consistently make such a stupid , stupid error.Now , in that light , if you 're tempted to dismiss this observation as unimportant , I 'd ask you to look at your own bias as well .
Its a tiny example , admittedly , but also extremely easy to remedy .
If you might be willing to apologize for President Obama in this oversight , ask yourself why...GWB is thought to have been responsible for all our last decade 's mistakes .
How then is it that replacing him with a nearly messianic leader does n't seem to have repaired very much ?
Instead we have the commander in chief that forgets to salute the flag .
How does this happen , and are we sure that this 'better ' leader will result in a 'better ' America ? I think what you are seeing as the lack of anything 'logical or factual ' is probably a product of this situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that a lot of the Obama hate seems way out in left field, but I also am sorely disappointed by the contrast between what was 'sold' and what we 'got'.
I think that this is likely the basis for the fervor.
Either personal disappointment, or more likely disillusionment around how someone could actually 'like' him.On the other hand, it isn't all totally baseless, either.
As a minor example of some hate that is true (that honestly surprised me): It is in fact true that he does not make a habit out of putting his hand over his heart when it would be respectful and customary.
This is 'okay' for a non-leader or a mere citizen, to be sure, but this is decidedly not okay for the PUSA.
It also seems way out of character for someone who ran such a masterful campaign to consistently make such a stupid, stupid error.Now, in that light, if you're tempted to dismiss this observation as unimportant, I'd ask you to look at your own bias as well.
Its a tiny example, admittedly, but also extremely easy to remedy.
If you might be willing to apologize for President Obama in this oversight, ask yourself why...GWB is thought to have been responsible for all our last decade's mistakes.
How then is it that replacing him with a nearly messianic leader doesn't seem to have repaired very much?
Instead we have the commander in chief that forgets to salute the flag.
How does this happen, and are we sure that this 'better' leader will result in a 'better' America?I think what you are seeing as the lack of anything 'logical or factual' is probably a product of this situation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145030</id>
	<title>Stimulus Funding</title>
	<author>cephalien</author>
	<datestamp>1257096720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's important to note that this stimulus funding (they're also called 'Recovery Act' grants) were under a very short submission cycle.</p><p>Essentially, we only had a few months to prepare and submit a proposal to get funded, which isn't a lot of time -- unless you already had a proposal ready (or nearly ready) in the wings. What this means in a practical sense is that a lot of what the stimulus funds would have ended up going to is work that's in-progress, or stuff that larger labs want to do as pilot projects.</p><p>Also: someone in here suggested shorter-term studies. That's not how real science is done. We try to encapsulate some specific aims in the grant time-frame, but what really happens fundamentally is that we end up using the grant funds to answer enough questions that we can go and apply for another grant.</p><p>It's a much-less cohesive and efficient system than many people realize.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's important to note that this stimulus funding ( they 're also called 'Recovery Act ' grants ) were under a very short submission cycle.Essentially , we only had a few months to prepare and submit a proposal to get funded , which is n't a lot of time -- unless you already had a proposal ready ( or nearly ready ) in the wings .
What this means in a practical sense is that a lot of what the stimulus funds would have ended up going to is work that 's in-progress , or stuff that larger labs want to do as pilot projects.Also : someone in here suggested shorter-term studies .
That 's not how real science is done .
We try to encapsulate some specific aims in the grant time-frame , but what really happens fundamentally is that we end up using the grant funds to answer enough questions that we can go and apply for another grant.It 's a much-less cohesive and efficient system than many people realize .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's important to note that this stimulus funding (they're also called 'Recovery Act' grants) were under a very short submission cycle.Essentially, we only had a few months to prepare and submit a proposal to get funded, which isn't a lot of time -- unless you already had a proposal ready (or nearly ready) in the wings.
What this means in a practical sense is that a lot of what the stimulus funds would have ended up going to is work that's in-progress, or stuff that larger labs want to do as pilot projects.Also: someone in here suggested shorter-term studies.
That's not how real science is done.
We try to encapsulate some specific aims in the grant time-frame, but what really happens fundamentally is that we end up using the grant funds to answer enough questions that we can go and apply for another grant.It's a much-less cohesive and efficient system than many people realize.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146244</id>
	<title>stifling progress</title>
	<author>czarangelus</author>
	<datestamp>1257101700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I firmly believe that government funding stifles scientific progress. The <i>way</i> the government chooses to allocate funds, is just a stimulus for its friends and an obstacle for its enemies. The government consistently funds scientific programs designed to uphold mainstream scientific interpretations of data, and they rarely fund projects that would challenge or overthrow the mainstream interpretation. Consider how little funding the Plasma Cosmologists have gotten, in comparison to the huge amount of money that has gone to astrophysicists who tell us that the universe is almost entirely invisible and virtually undetectable. This is like the medieval Catholic church funding mathematicians to produce increasingly elegant papers on epicycles while ignoring the research of heliocentrists. I, for one, would like to see the government out of science and Natural Philosophy returned to the realm of dilettantes and other assorted rabble who actually base their theories on <i>observed data</i> instead of mathematical conjecture.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I firmly believe that government funding stifles scientific progress .
The way the government chooses to allocate funds , is just a stimulus for its friends and an obstacle for its enemies .
The government consistently funds scientific programs designed to uphold mainstream scientific interpretations of data , and they rarely fund projects that would challenge or overthrow the mainstream interpretation .
Consider how little funding the Plasma Cosmologists have gotten , in comparison to the huge amount of money that has gone to astrophysicists who tell us that the universe is almost entirely invisible and virtually undetectable .
This is like the medieval Catholic church funding mathematicians to produce increasingly elegant papers on epicycles while ignoring the research of heliocentrists .
I , for one , would like to see the government out of science and Natural Philosophy returned to the realm of dilettantes and other assorted rabble who actually base their theories on observed data instead of mathematical conjecture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I firmly believe that government funding stifles scientific progress.
The way the government chooses to allocate funds, is just a stimulus for its friends and an obstacle for its enemies.
The government consistently funds scientific programs designed to uphold mainstream scientific interpretations of data, and they rarely fund projects that would challenge or overthrow the mainstream interpretation.
Consider how little funding the Plasma Cosmologists have gotten, in comparison to the huge amount of money that has gone to astrophysicists who tell us that the universe is almost entirely invisible and virtually undetectable.
This is like the medieval Catholic church funding mathematicians to produce increasingly elegant papers on epicycles while ignoring the research of heliocentrists.
I, for one, would like to see the government out of science and Natural Philosophy returned to the realm of dilettantes and other assorted rabble who actually base their theories on observed data instead of mathematical conjecture.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1556204_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30147280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1556204_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1556204_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30147410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1556204_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30149524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1556204_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1556204_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1556204_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30150710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1556204_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30153206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1556204_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1556204_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1556204_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30148912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1556204_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30147212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1556204_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1556204_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30147254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1556204_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1556204_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1556204_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1556204_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30147200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1556204_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30148990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1556204_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1556204_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30148624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1556204_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1556204_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1556204_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30148788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1556204_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30153314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1556204.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30148990
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1556204.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144930
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1556204.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30148788
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1556204.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1556204.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145878
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1556204.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145640
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1556204.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144888
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145140
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145248
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145900
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146370
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30147280
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30147212
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146578
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30147254
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146324
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146600
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145938
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145238
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146808
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30150710
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30149524
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30153314
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145752
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146940
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146360
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30148912
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30153206
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30147410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1556204.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145888
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1556204.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30145520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30148624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30146826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1556204.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30144910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1556204.30147200
</commentlist>
</conversation>
