<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_24_2234210</id>
	<title>Two Senators Call For ACTA Transparency</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1259071800000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/" rel="nofollow">angry tapir</a> writes <i>"Two US senators have asked President Barack Obama's administration to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091123/1541197061.shtml">allow the public to review and comment</a> on a controversial international copyright treaty being negotiated largely in secret. The public has a right to know what's being negotiated in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (<a href="//yro.slashdot.org/story/09/10/16/165256/Secret-ACTA-Treaty-May-Sport-Internet-Enforcement-Procedures-After-All">ACTA</a>), Senators Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, and Bernard Sanders, a Vermont Independent, argue in the letter."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>angry tapir writes " Two US senators have asked President Barack Obama 's administration to allow the public to review and comment on a controversial international copyright treaty being negotiated largely in secret .
The public has a right to know what 's being negotiated in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement ( ACTA ) , Senators Sherrod Brown , an Ohio Democrat , and Bernard Sanders , a Vermont Independent , argue in the letter .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>angry tapir writes "Two US senators have asked President Barack Obama's administration to allow the public to review and comment on a controversial international copyright treaty being negotiated largely in secret.
The public has a right to know what's being negotiated in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), Senators Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, and Bernard Sanders, a Vermont Independent, argue in the letter.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222336</id>
	<title>Gonna be modded down but ...</title>
	<author>ThomasFlip</author>
	<datestamp>1259078880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>America had a choice,,, Ron Paul. The sad part is that the 2012 election will once again reign in "change" in the form of a Republican "conservative". Both parties are bought and paid for with the exception of a few individuals. Wake up people!</htmltext>
<tokenext>America had a choice,, , Ron Paul .
The sad part is that the 2012 election will once again reign in " change " in the form of a Republican " conservative " .
Both parties are bought and paid for with the exception of a few individuals .
Wake up people !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>America had a choice,,, Ron Paul.
The sad part is that the 2012 election will once again reign in "change" in the form of a Republican "conservative".
Both parties are bought and paid for with the exception of a few individuals.
Wake up people!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223508</id>
	<title>Re:ROFLCOPTER</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257193740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Our government is a 2bpp system in a 32bpp world."</p><p>Our government is like a car missing it's doors, windows, locks, hubcaps with a permanent flat tire (car analogy FTW)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Our government is a 2bpp system in a 32bpp world .
" Our government is like a car missing it 's doors , windows , locks , hubcaps with a permanent flat tire ( car analogy FTW )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Our government is a 2bpp system in a 32bpp world.
"Our government is like a car missing it's doors, windows, locks, hubcaps with a permanent flat tire (car analogy FTW)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222214</id>
	<title>Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259077920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent down. Racism has nothing to do with the issue at hand (posting anonymously since I don't want a score 2 comment putting the parent into the spotlight)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent down .
Racism has nothing to do with the issue at hand ( posting anonymously since I do n't want a score 2 comment putting the parent into the spotlight )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent down.
Racism has nothing to do with the issue at hand (posting anonymously since I don't want a score 2 comment putting the parent into the spotlight)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221932</id>
	<title>In secret?!</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1259075460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It sucks. It can't be good if they have negotiate "largely" in secret.<p>There's my comment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sucks .
It ca n't be good if they have negotiate " largely " in secret.There 's my comment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sucks.
It can't be good if they have negotiate "largely" in secret.There's my comment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223048</id>
	<title>Re:The senators can sign a law that takes a way th</title>
	<author>theNetImp</author>
	<datestamp>1259087040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It appears they can.</p><p><a href="http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/article-2/19-constitutional-limitations-on-treaty-power.html" title="justia.com" rel="nofollow">http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/article-2/19-constitutional-limitations-on-treaty-power.html</a> [justia.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It appears they can.http : //supreme.justia.com/constitution/article-2/19-constitutional-limitations-on-treaty-power.html [ justia.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It appears they can.http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/article-2/19-constitutional-limitations-on-treaty-power.html [justia.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222578</id>
	<title>LEAVE USA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259081340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just leave the US. It's done for. Our best chance at freedom will be independence in space. Go live in a remote country and get away from these douche bags. You getting raped so much in the US that your asshole is gaping.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just leave the US .
It 's done for .
Our best chance at freedom will be independence in space .
Go live in a remote country and get away from these douche bags .
You getting raped so much in the US that your asshole is gaping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just leave the US.
It's done for.
Our best chance at freedom will be independence in space.
Go live in a remote country and get away from these douche bags.
You getting raped so much in the US that your asshole is gaping.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222794</id>
	<title>Re:The senators can sign a law that takes a way th</title>
	<author>donaggie03</author>
	<datestamp>1259083560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately this is a treaty, not a law.  I don't know if the supreme court can nullify a treaty.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately this is a treaty , not a law .
I do n't know if the supreme court can nullify a treaty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately this is a treaty, not a law.
I don't know if the supreme court can nullify a treaty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223366</id>
	<title>Re:ROFLCOPTER</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259092440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's quite a statement, coming from BadAnalogyGuy and all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's quite a statement , coming from BadAnalogyGuy and all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's quite a statement, coming from BadAnalogyGuy and all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222948</id>
	<title>Re:Most insightful department ever</title>
	<author>lazy\_nihilist</author>
	<datestamp>1259085600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bernie Sanders is one of the few politicians I IMMENSELY RESPECT. Though I am ideologically opposed to Ron Paul, I admire his honesty and straightforwardness as well. If only the rest of the politicians were like these. Wishful thinking on my part.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bernie Sanders is one of the few politicians I IMMENSELY RESPECT .
Though I am ideologically opposed to Ron Paul , I admire his honesty and straightforwardness as well .
If only the rest of the politicians were like these .
Wishful thinking on my part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bernie Sanders is one of the few politicians I IMMENSELY RESPECT.
Though I am ideologically opposed to Ron Paul, I admire his honesty and straightforwardness as well.
If only the rest of the politicians were like these.
Wishful thinking on my part.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30225826</id>
	<title>Oh, it most certainly will be law. WTO proves it.</title>
	<author>leftie</author>
	<datestamp>1257176820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Better go look up the World Trade Organization. Half the stuff that organization does is by means of processes that aren't transparent at all. There's not been even a hint that anyone in the legal community might suggest the WTO has done anything improper.</p><p>If you wish to fight ACTA, you better get off your butt and do it now. The lawyers aren't going to fight it afterward.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Better go look up the World Trade Organization .
Half the stuff that organization does is by means of processes that are n't transparent at all .
There 's not been even a hint that anyone in the legal community might suggest the WTO has done anything improper.If you wish to fight ACTA , you better get off your butt and do it now .
The lawyers are n't going to fight it afterward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better go look up the World Trade Organization.
Half the stuff that organization does is by means of processes that aren't transparent at all.
There's not been even a hint that anyone in the legal community might suggest the WTO has done anything improper.If you wish to fight ACTA, you better get off your butt and do it now.
The lawyers aren't going to fight it afterward.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223314</id>
	<title>All right!</title>
	<author>nonades</author>
	<datestamp>1259091420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Finally, my senators are doing something before I have to do something! God bless Vermont.


In all seriousness, we need to stand up against Big Media. The morons running the RIAA and MPAA need to learn that they can't control media like they used to, times have changed.

"Kick back watch it crumble
See the drowning, watch the fall
I feel just terrible about it
That's sarcasm, let it burn<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

The dinosaurs will slowly die
And I do believe no one will cry
I'm just fucking glad I'm gonna be
There to watch the fall"

Dinosaurs Will Die - NoFX</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , my senators are doing something before I have to do something !
God bless Vermont .
In all seriousness , we need to stand up against Big Media .
The morons running the RIAA and MPAA need to learn that they ca n't control media like they used to , times have changed .
" Kick back watch it crumble See the drowning , watch the fall I feel just terrible about it That 's sarcasm , let it burn .. . The dinosaurs will slowly die And I do believe no one will cry I 'm just fucking glad I 'm gon na be There to watch the fall " Dinosaurs Will Die - NoFX</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally, my senators are doing something before I have to do something!
God bless Vermont.
In all seriousness, we need to stand up against Big Media.
The morons running the RIAA and MPAA need to learn that they can't control media like they used to, times have changed.
"Kick back watch it crumble
See the drowning, watch the fall
I feel just terrible about it
That's sarcasm, let it burn ...

The dinosaurs will slowly die
And I do believe no one will cry
I'm just fucking glad I'm gonna be
There to watch the fall"

Dinosaurs Will Die - NoFX</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223178</id>
	<title>Re:Most insightful department ever</title>
	<author>mellon</author>
	<datestamp>1259088900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am *totally* moving to Vermont now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am * totally * moving to Vermont now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am *totally* moving to Vermont now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221978</id>
	<title>ROFLCOPTER</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259075760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why legislate in the open when you can negotiate secret treaties in the dark?</p><p>Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.</p><p>It doesn't matter if this treaty is filled with rainbows and puppies.  It needs to be killed as a matter of principle.  Free people and free nations do not make law in the dark.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why legislate in the open when you can negotiate secret treaties in the dark ? Meet the new boss , same as the old boss.It does n't matter if this treaty is filled with rainbows and puppies .
It needs to be killed as a matter of principle .
Free people and free nations do not make law in the dark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why legislate in the open when you can negotiate secret treaties in the dark?Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.It doesn't matter if this treaty is filled with rainbows and puppies.
It needs to be killed as a matter of principle.
Free people and free nations do not make law in the dark.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30224886</id>
	<title>Secrecy</title>
	<author>headkase</author>
	<datestamp>1257169140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Damn sleep, missed the beginning of this one.  Secrecy is the antithesis of Democracy.  Unless your talking about your newest super-duper kill-em-all weapon then secrecy is Evil.  It hides agendas, it does not promote truth and it allows people to push their petty prejudice onto everyone.  It's Evil.  Whatever is decided do it in the open with all parties being on the level.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn sleep , missed the beginning of this one .
Secrecy is the antithesis of Democracy .
Unless your talking about your newest super-duper kill-em-all weapon then secrecy is Evil .
It hides agendas , it does not promote truth and it allows people to push their petty prejudice onto everyone .
It 's Evil .
Whatever is decided do it in the open with all parties being on the level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn sleep, missed the beginning of this one.
Secrecy is the antithesis of Democracy.
Unless your talking about your newest super-duper kill-em-all weapon then secrecy is Evil.
It hides agendas, it does not promote truth and it allows people to push their petty prejudice onto everyone.
It's Evil.
Whatever is decided do it in the open with all parties being on the level.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222504</id>
	<title>Re:The senators can sign a law that takes a way th</title>
	<author>TD-Linux</author>
	<datestamp>1259080860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The senators can sign a law that takes a way the parts of the bill of rights.</p></div><p>After which it will be immediately ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The senators can sign a law that takes a way the parts of the bill of rights.After which it will be immediately ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The senators can sign a law that takes a way the parts of the bill of rights.After which it will be immediately ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30229468</id>
	<title>Re:Most insightful department ever</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1257193860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I wrote to Senators Durbin, and Burris. They both responded in form letter that they are all for whatever is being negotiated to stop "piracy".</i> <br>Is there anything in this treaty about arming merchant ships? It would be kind of hard to board a ship capable of raining granades down on a pirate boat<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wrote to Senators Durbin , and Burris .
They both responded in form letter that they are all for whatever is being negotiated to stop " piracy " .
Is there anything in this treaty about arming merchant ships ?
It would be kind of hard to board a ship capable of raining granades down on a pirate boat : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wrote to Senators Durbin, and Burris.
They both responded in form letter that they are all for whatever is being negotiated to stop "piracy".
Is there anything in this treaty about arming merchant ships?
It would be kind of hard to board a ship capable of raining granades down on a pirate boat :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222450</id>
	<title>Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259080140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real question is whether dead voters are racist...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real question is whether dead voters are racist.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real question is whether dead voters are racist...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30224642</id>
	<title>Re:ROFLCOPTER</title>
	<author>CrackedButter</author>
	<datestamp>1257165420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Free people and free nations do not make law in the dark." - so fucking true it should hurt.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Free people and free nations do not make law in the dark .
" - so fucking true it should hurt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Free people and free nations do not make law in the dark.
" - so fucking true it should hurt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223350</id>
	<title>Re:Most insightful department ever</title>
	<author>Comatose51</author>
	<datestamp>1259092140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow.  That's very respectable.  The one time I contacted my representative with a long, detailed message about the financial crisis, she sent back a boiler plate response that's not even half as detailed as my message.  I understand she has other people to serve but that was a real disappointment.  I'm glad at least someone else has had better interaction with their representative.  I hate the fact that I live in a secure Democratic town because they don't have any real competition to the seat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
That 's very respectable .
The one time I contacted my representative with a long , detailed message about the financial crisis , she sent back a boiler plate response that 's not even half as detailed as my message .
I understand she has other people to serve but that was a real disappointment .
I 'm glad at least someone else has had better interaction with their representative .
I hate the fact that I live in a secure Democratic town because they do n't have any real competition to the seat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
That's very respectable.
The one time I contacted my representative with a long, detailed message about the financial crisis, she sent back a boiler plate response that's not even half as detailed as my message.
I understand she has other people to serve but that was a real disappointment.
I'm glad at least someone else has had better interaction with their representative.
I hate the fact that I live in a secure Democratic town because they don't have any real competition to the seat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223312</id>
	<title>Re:In secret?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259091360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yeah, but if they do it in secret then ratify it, it won't really be law. Turns out the government can't enact domestic laws simply by signing treaties - or if they try they won't necessarily stand up in court.</p></div><p>This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but if they do it in secret then ratify it , it wo n't really be law .
Turns out the government ca n't enact domestic laws simply by signing treaties - or if they try they wo n't necessarily stand up in court.This Constitution , and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ; and all Treaties made , or which shall be made , under the Authority of the United States , shall be the supreme Law of the Land ; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby , any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but if they do it in secret then ratify it, it won't really be law.
Turns out the government can't enact domestic laws simply by signing treaties - or if they try they won't necessarily stand up in court.This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223130</id>
	<title>Re:The senators can sign a law that takes a way th</title>
	<author>drizek</author>
	<datestamp>1259088180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No they can't.</p><p>They are the lowest rung on the ladder. The President has to sign it and the Supreme Court has to approve it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No they ca n't.They are the lowest rung on the ladder .
The President has to sign it and the Supreme Court has to approve it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No they can't.They are the lowest rung on the ladder.
The President has to sign it and the Supreme Court has to approve it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222220</id>
	<title>Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259078040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.</p></div><p>Because the Rethuglicans haven't relied on that for poor white votes for the last 40 years or anything. FFS, they torpedoed McCain's 2000 candidacy by implying that he might have a *gasp* BLACK CHILD.</p><p>Obvious troll is obvious.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Therefore , in future elections , please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.Because the Rethuglicans have n't relied on that for poor white votes for the last 40 years or anything .
FFS , they torpedoed McCain 's 2000 candidacy by implying that he might have a * gasp * BLACK CHILD.Obvious troll is obvious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.Because the Rethuglicans haven't relied on that for poor white votes for the last 40 years or anything.
FFS, they torpedoed McCain's 2000 candidacy by implying that he might have a *gasp* BLACK CHILD.Obvious troll is obvious.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223892</id>
	<title>Re:what what the name of that Who song?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257156240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Myopic zombies?</p><p>Sure, some people seemed rather busy equating Obama with the second coming and all. Plenty of people however realised that he would be much like many other presidents and do all the evil things one generally expects of a politician.</p><p>But myopic zombies? He's still a better alternative than the republicans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Myopic zombies ? Sure , some people seemed rather busy equating Obama with the second coming and all .
Plenty of people however realised that he would be much like many other presidents and do all the evil things one generally expects of a politician.But myopic zombies ?
He 's still a better alternative than the republicans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Myopic zombies?Sure, some people seemed rather busy equating Obama with the second coming and all.
Plenty of people however realised that he would be much like many other presidents and do all the evil things one generally expects of a politician.But myopic zombies?
He's still a better alternative than the republicans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30226086</id>
	<title>Re:ROFLCOPTER</title>
	<author>jmerlin</author>
	<datestamp>1257178200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>An administration that has been mostly lies from its inception does.  Developing the core ideas of new legislation, unfettered from bullshit, goes on in these closed rooms paid for by taxes which taxpayers are not allowed to enter.  Once the details are agreed upon by the corporate interests and corrupt govt officials, a company is hired to produce an enormous bill into which the desired effects are embedded, much like a virus writer would develop a virus and hide it inside of what might seem to be a legitimate application.  Once done, it is quickly rushed through congress before anyone has a chance to read it (ala, virus scanners for the analogy).<br> <br>

The only question I have is.. after Obama is removed from his dictatorship here, will we be able to fix any of this, or will the next guy once again just follow in the footsteps of the old guy.  I'd not be surprised if Obama was put into the presidency by powerful interests, and I wouldn't be surprised if the next guy were by the same people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An administration that has been mostly lies from its inception does .
Developing the core ideas of new legislation , unfettered from bullshit , goes on in these closed rooms paid for by taxes which taxpayers are not allowed to enter .
Once the details are agreed upon by the corporate interests and corrupt govt officials , a company is hired to produce an enormous bill into which the desired effects are embedded , much like a virus writer would develop a virus and hide it inside of what might seem to be a legitimate application .
Once done , it is quickly rushed through congress before anyone has a chance to read it ( ala , virus scanners for the analogy ) .
The only question I have is.. after Obama is removed from his dictatorship here , will we be able to fix any of this , or will the next guy once again just follow in the footsteps of the old guy .
I 'd not be surprised if Obama was put into the presidency by powerful interests , and I would n't be surprised if the next guy were by the same people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An administration that has been mostly lies from its inception does.
Developing the core ideas of new legislation, unfettered from bullshit, goes on in these closed rooms paid for by taxes which taxpayers are not allowed to enter.
Once the details are agreed upon by the corporate interests and corrupt govt officials, a company is hired to produce an enormous bill into which the desired effects are embedded, much like a virus writer would develop a virus and hide it inside of what might seem to be a legitimate application.
Once done, it is quickly rushed through congress before anyone has a chance to read it (ala, virus scanners for the analogy).
The only question I have is.. after Obama is removed from his dictatorship here, will we be able to fix any of this, or will the next guy once again just follow in the footsteps of the old guy.
I'd not be surprised if Obama was put into the presidency by powerful interests, and I wouldn't be surprised if the next guy were by the same people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30230812</id>
	<title>Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians</title>
	<author>tonyreadsnews</author>
	<datestamp>1257157980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Right, because it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that maybe there is a cultural connection, and they felt he would represent them more.<br>
If what you say is true, then no African-American candidate anywhere would lose where the majority of the voting population was African-American, and I don't see any evidence to back that up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , because it could n't have anything to do with the fact that maybe there is a cultural connection , and they felt he would represent them more .
If what you say is true , then no African-American candidate anywhere would lose where the majority of the voting population was African-American , and I do n't see any evidence to back that up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, because it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that maybe there is a cultural connection, and they felt he would represent them more.
If what you say is true, then no African-American candidate anywhere would lose where the majority of the voting population was African-American, and I don't see any evidence to back that up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222092</id>
	<title>The senators can sign a law that takes a way the p</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1259076720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The senators can sign a law that takes a way the parts of the bill of rights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The senators can sign a law that takes a way the parts of the bill of rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The senators can sign a law that takes a way the parts of the bill of rights.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30225278</id>
	<title>Re:Most insightful department ever</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1257173340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If the company openly supports ACTA, or is known to have had a hand in writing it, then don't buy their product at all.</p></div></blockquote><p>One of the (many) truly bad things about the ACTA is that it includes punishments for repeated accusations of piracy.  So let's say you decide to not buy MPAA/RIAA products and say so publicly.  The MPAA/RIAA could accuse you of pirating (even without any evidence whatsoever) a few times and you'd be kicked offline.  So even if you aren't pirating, but are just a nuisance, they can say you are pirating, get you kicked offline and force you to spend time and money on a lawsuit to not only clear your name, but to get yourself back online.  In other words, under ACTA, big media companies hold all the cards and you'd better submit to their will or else.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the company openly supports ACTA , or is known to have had a hand in writing it , then do n't buy their product at all.One of the ( many ) truly bad things about the ACTA is that it includes punishments for repeated accusations of piracy .
So let 's say you decide to not buy MPAA/RIAA products and say so publicly .
The MPAA/RIAA could accuse you of pirating ( even without any evidence whatsoever ) a few times and you 'd be kicked offline .
So even if you are n't pirating , but are just a nuisance , they can say you are pirating , get you kicked offline and force you to spend time and money on a lawsuit to not only clear your name , but to get yourself back online .
In other words , under ACTA , big media companies hold all the cards and you 'd better submit to their will or else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the company openly supports ACTA, or is known to have had a hand in writing it, then don't buy their product at all.One of the (many) truly bad things about the ACTA is that it includes punishments for repeated accusations of piracy.
So let's say you decide to not buy MPAA/RIAA products and say so publicly.
The MPAA/RIAA could accuse you of pirating (even without any evidence whatsoever) a few times and you'd be kicked offline.
So even if you aren't pirating, but are just a nuisance, they can say you are pirating, get you kicked offline and force you to spend time and money on a lawsuit to not only clear your name, but to get yourself back online.
In other words, under ACTA, big media companies hold all the cards and you'd better submit to their will or else.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222104</id>
	<title>My original link + PDF of the letter</title>
	<author>angry tapir</author>
	<datestamp>1259076900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's the <a href="http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/article/327583" title="goodgearguide.com.au">link</a> [goodgearguide.com.au] to the longer article that was originally in my story submission before the editor removed it. It includes a link to a <a href="http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/kei-pk-acta-letter-20091109.pdf" title="publicknowledge.org">PDF of the letter</a> [publicknowledge.org].<p>cheers,<br>
A. Tapir</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the link [ goodgearguide.com.au ] to the longer article that was originally in my story submission before the editor removed it .
It includes a link to a PDF of the letter [ publicknowledge.org ] .cheers , A. Tapir</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the link [goodgearguide.com.au] to the longer article that was originally in my story submission before the editor removed it.
It includes a link to a PDF of the letter [publicknowledge.org].cheers,
A. Tapir</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222132</id>
	<title>Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259077140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.  See the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] by CNN.
<p>
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.  These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks).  Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian.  So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern.  Only about 65\% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama.  In other words, a maximum of 65\% support by any ethnic or racial group for <b>either</b> McCain <b>or</b> Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable.  (A maximum of 65\% for McCain is okay.  So, European-American support at 55\% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.)
</p><p>
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.  At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
</p><p>
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.  That claim is an outright lie.  Look at the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#NCDEM" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.  Consider the case of North Carolina.  Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.  Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.  Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.  Why?  African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
</p><p>
Here is the bottom line.  Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.  He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
</p><p>
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.  Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.  Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.  Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.  You need not defend your actions in any way.  Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>During the election , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
See the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] by CNN .
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics , Asian-Americans , etc .
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites ( and other non-Black folks ) .
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian .
So , Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and , hence , serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern .
Only about 65 \ % of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama .
In other words , a maximum of 65 \ % support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and , hence , is acceptable .
( A maximum of 65 \ % for McCain is okay .
So , European-American support at 55 \ % for McCain is well below this threshold and , hence , is not racist .
) If African-Americans were not racist , then at most 65 \ % of them would have supported Obama .
At that level of support , McCain would have won the presidential race .
At this point , African-American supremacists ( and apologists ) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he ( 1 ) is a member of the Democratic party and ( 2 ) supports its ideals .
That claim is an outright lie .
Look at the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] for the Democratic primaries .
Consider the case of North Carolina .
Again , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton .
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats , and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical .
Yet , 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton .
Why ? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
Here is the bottom line .
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America .
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans .
African-Americans have established that expressing " racial pride " by voting on the basis of skin color is 100 \ % acceptable .
Neither the " Wall Street Journal " nor the " New York Times " complained about this racist behavior .
Therefore , in future elections , please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color .
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American .
You need not defend your actions in any way .
Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today 's moral standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
See the exit-polling data [cnn.com] by CNN.
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks).
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian.
So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern.
Only about 65\% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama.
In other words, a maximum of 65\% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable.
(A maximum of 65\% for McCain is okay.
So, European-American support at 55\% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.
)

If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.
At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.
That claim is an outright lie.
Look at the exit-polling data [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.
Consider the case of North Carolina.
Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.
Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.
Why?  African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
Here is the bottom line.
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.
Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.
Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.
You need not defend your actions in any way.
Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222688</id>
	<title>nt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259082720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tag this with "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tag this with " suddenoutbreakofcommonsense "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tag this with "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30225526</id>
	<title>Re:ROFLCOPTER</title>
	<author>qmaqdk</author>
	<datestamp>1257174960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://maq.dk/" title="maq.dk" rel="nofollow">http://maq.dk/</a> [maq.dk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //maq.dk/ [ maq.dk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://maq.dk/ [maq.dk]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223512</id>
	<title>Re:Gonna be modded down but ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257193740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; I want to believe that the US can abandon commitments to the rest of the world without consequences just because our priorities change.</p><p>Why not? You've been doing that for decades... and you're still not paying UN dues you owe the rest of the world either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; I want to believe that the US can abandon commitments to the rest of the world without consequences just because our priorities change.Why not ?
You 've been doing that for decades... and you 're still not paying UN dues you owe the rest of the world either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; I want to believe that the US can abandon commitments to the rest of the world without consequences just because our priorities change.Why not?
You've been doing that for decades... and you're still not paying UN dues you owe the rest of the world either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221988</id>
	<title>what what the name of that Who song?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259075880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>meet the new boss same as the old boss..  Oh, excuse me, i didn't mean to offend any of the myopic zombies that put this guy in office ) And no, it this were an actual troll, i would be making excuses for why his consistent secrecy is tolerable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>meet the new boss same as the old boss.. Oh , excuse me , i did n't mean to offend any of the myopic zombies that put this guy in office ) And no , it this were an actual troll , i would be making excuses for why his consistent secrecy is tolerable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>meet the new boss same as the old boss..  Oh, excuse me, i didn't mean to offend any of the myopic zombies that put this guy in office ) And no, it this were an actual troll, i would be making excuses for why his consistent secrecy is tolerable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222828</id>
	<title>Re:In secret?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259084040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was a TechDirt article on ACTA a few days ago. According to the industries who are supporting this:<br>"All treaties are negotiated like this, secrecy is normal"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a TechDirt article on ACTA a few days ago .
According to the industries who are supporting this : " All treaties are negotiated like this , secrecy is normal "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a TechDirt article on ACTA a few days ago.
According to the industries who are supporting this:"All treaties are negotiated like this, secrecy is normal"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222108</id>
	<title>Re:Most insightful department ever</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259076960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wrote to Senators Durbin, and Burris. They both responded in form letter that they are all for whatever is being negotiated to stop "piracy". Apparently either they didn't read or don't care that what is really happening (from what has been leaked) is the end of Fair Use, and First Sale. Along with DRM with no way out.</p><p>Nice to know both my Senators have our interest at heart.</p><p>Not!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wrote to Senators Durbin , and Burris .
They both responded in form letter that they are all for whatever is being negotiated to stop " piracy " .
Apparently either they did n't read or do n't care that what is really happening ( from what has been leaked ) is the end of Fair Use , and First Sale .
Along with DRM with no way out.Nice to know both my Senators have our interest at heart.Not !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wrote to Senators Durbin, and Burris.
They both responded in form letter that they are all for whatever is being negotiated to stop "piracy".
Apparently either they didn't read or don't care that what is really happening (from what has been leaked) is the end of Fair Use, and First Sale.
Along with DRM with no way out.Nice to know both my Senators have our interest at heart.Not!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30226392</id>
	<title>Re:Gonna be modded down but ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257179760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I want to believe that your post wasn't written by a troll.</p><p>No one has ever claimed that healthcare is free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I want to believe that your post was n't written by a troll.No one has ever claimed that healthcare is free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I want to believe that your post wasn't written by a troll.No one has ever claimed that healthcare is free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30224378</id>
	<title>Re:Gonna be modded down but ...</title>
	<author>VShael</author>
	<datestamp>1257161520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Though you were modded down, I agree with you. And while I liked a lot of what Ron Paul stood for, I tended to prefer Dennis Kucinich who's a very different candidate in many ways. (Not just party affiliation.) But I also knew both of them would never get anywhere, because they were both outside the status-quo-maintaining system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Though you were modded down , I agree with you .
And while I liked a lot of what Ron Paul stood for , I tended to prefer Dennis Kucinich who 's a very different candidate in many ways .
( Not just party affiliation .
) But I also knew both of them would never get anywhere , because they were both outside the status-quo-maintaining system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though you were modded down, I agree with you.
And while I liked a lot of what Ron Paul stood for, I tended to prefer Dennis Kucinich who's a very different candidate in many ways.
(Not just party affiliation.
) But I also knew both of them would never get anywhere, because they were both outside the status-quo-maintaining system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30227352</id>
	<title>You GO, Senator Brown!</title>
	<author>JonStewartMill</author>
	<datestamp>1257184380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm especially gratified because I sent him a letter on this topic a few weeks ago.  My letter might have been the one that prompted him to act.

Yeah, I know the odds of that are vanishingly small, but everybody needs something to believe in.  I choose to believe that what I do makes a difference.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm especially gratified because I sent him a letter on this topic a few weeks ago .
My letter might have been the one that prompted him to act .
Yeah , I know the odds of that are vanishingly small , but everybody needs something to believe in .
I choose to believe that what I do makes a difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm especially gratified because I sent him a letter on this topic a few weeks ago.
My letter might have been the one that prompted him to act.
Yeah, I know the odds of that are vanishingly small, but everybody needs something to believe in.
I choose to believe that what I do makes a difference.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222592</id>
	<title>Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259081460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.  See the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] by CNN.
<p>
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.  These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks).  Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian.  So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern.  Only about 65\% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama.  In other words, a maximum of 65\% support by any ethnic or racial group for <b>either</b> McCain <b>or</b> Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable.  (A maximum of 65\% for McCain is okay.  So, European-American support at 55\% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.)
</p><p>
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.  At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
</p><p>
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.  That claim is an outright lie.  Look at the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#NCDEM" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.  Consider the case of North Carolina.  Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.  Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.  Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.  Why?  African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
</p><p>
Here is the bottom line.  Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.  He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
</p><p>
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.  Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.  Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.  Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.  You need not defend your actions in any way.  Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>During the election , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
See the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] by CNN .
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics , Asian-Americans , etc .
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites ( and other non-Black folks ) .
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian .
So , Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and , hence , serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern .
Only about 65 \ % of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama .
In other words , a maximum of 65 \ % support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and , hence , is acceptable .
( A maximum of 65 \ % for McCain is okay .
So , European-American support at 55 \ % for McCain is well below this threshold and , hence , is not racist .
) If African-Americans were not racist , then at most 65 \ % of them would have supported Obama .
At that level of support , McCain would have won the presidential race .
At this point , African-American supremacists ( and apologists ) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he ( 1 ) is a member of the Democratic party and ( 2 ) supports its ideals .
That claim is an outright lie .
Look at the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] for the Democratic primaries .
Consider the case of North Carolina .
Again , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton .
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats , and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical .
Yet , 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton .
Why ? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
Here is the bottom line .
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America .
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans .
African-Americans have established that expressing " racial pride " by voting on the basis of skin color is 100 \ % acceptable .
Neither the " Wall Street Journal " nor the " New York Times " complained about this racist behavior .
Therefore , in future elections , please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color .
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American .
You need not defend your actions in any way .
Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today 's moral standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
See the exit-polling data [cnn.com] by CNN.
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks).
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian.
So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern.
Only about 65\% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama.
In other words, a maximum of 65\% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable.
(A maximum of 65\% for McCain is okay.
So, European-American support at 55\% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.
)

If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.
At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.
That claim is an outright lie.
Look at the exit-polling data [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.
Consider the case of North Carolina.
Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.
Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.
Why?  African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
Here is the bottom line.
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.
Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.
Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.
You need not defend your actions in any way.
Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30225426</id>
	<title>It's an "executive agreement"</title>
	<author>langelgjm</author>
	<datestamp>1257174300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the (many) problems with ACTA from the US perspective is that it's not being negotiated as a treaty, which would then require ratification by the Senate before becoming law. It's being negotiated as an "executive agreement", which requires zero Congressional oversight. Ostensibly this also means that it cannot go beyond the bounds of existing US law, and of course the USTR et al. all assure us that it doesn't, but without seeing the text, there is no way to know if that's actually true or not.</p><p>Another point - from my own perspective, one of the main problems with ACTA is not necessarily its effect on the US, but rather on other countries. At least in the US we already have well-established fair use provisions and other protections (safe harbor, counter notification, etc.), however that is not always the case elsewhere. If ACTA exports all the draconian features of our IP laws without any of the protections, it has the effect of screwing over everyone else. ACTA is currently being negotiated mostly among OECD countries (they could never have pushed it through WIPO, there is too much opposition from the G77), but when it's finally established, we can expect it to become a requirement for anyone who wants to sign a free-trade agreement with the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the ( many ) problems with ACTA from the US perspective is that it 's not being negotiated as a treaty , which would then require ratification by the Senate before becoming law .
It 's being negotiated as an " executive agreement " , which requires zero Congressional oversight .
Ostensibly this also means that it can not go beyond the bounds of existing US law , and of course the USTR et al .
all assure us that it does n't , but without seeing the text , there is no way to know if that 's actually true or not.Another point - from my own perspective , one of the main problems with ACTA is not necessarily its effect on the US , but rather on other countries .
At least in the US we already have well-established fair use provisions and other protections ( safe harbor , counter notification , etc .
) , however that is not always the case elsewhere .
If ACTA exports all the draconian features of our IP laws without any of the protections , it has the effect of screwing over everyone else .
ACTA is currently being negotiated mostly among OECD countries ( they could never have pushed it through WIPO , there is too much opposition from the G77 ) , but when it 's finally established , we can expect it to become a requirement for anyone who wants to sign a free-trade agreement with the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the (many) problems with ACTA from the US perspective is that it's not being negotiated as a treaty, which would then require ratification by the Senate before becoming law.
It's being negotiated as an "executive agreement", which requires zero Congressional oversight.
Ostensibly this also means that it cannot go beyond the bounds of existing US law, and of course the USTR et al.
all assure us that it doesn't, but without seeing the text, there is no way to know if that's actually true or not.Another point - from my own perspective, one of the main problems with ACTA is not necessarily its effect on the US, but rather on other countries.
At least in the US we already have well-established fair use provisions and other protections (safe harbor, counter notification, etc.
), however that is not always the case elsewhere.
If ACTA exports all the draconian features of our IP laws without any of the protections, it has the effect of screwing over everyone else.
ACTA is currently being negotiated mostly among OECD countries (they could never have pushed it through WIPO, there is too much opposition from the G77), but when it's finally established, we can expect it to become a requirement for anyone who wants to sign a free-trade agreement with the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223304</id>
	<title>Against ACTA or not?</title>
	<author>LeperPuppet</author>
	<datestamp>1259091240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So are they actually against ACTA, or just signaling to the RIAA and MPAA that they need some campaign contributions?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So are they actually against ACTA , or just signaling to the RIAA and MPAA that they need some campaign contributions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So are they actually against ACTA, or just signaling to the RIAA and MPAA that they need some campaign contributions?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222612</id>
	<title>Re:Most insightful department ever</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1259081880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Good luck to Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown and anyone else who might join them.</p></div></blockquote><p>Say, which party are these two heroes from, anyway?</p><p>Credit where credit is due and all that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good luck to Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown and anyone else who might join them.Say , which party are these two heroes from , anyway ? Credit where credit is due and all that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good luck to Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown and anyone else who might join them.Say, which party are these two heroes from, anyway?Credit where credit is due and all that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221940</id>
	<title>Christmas gift is here...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259075460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.coolforsale.com/" title="coolforsale.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolforsale.com/</a> [coolforsale.com]  Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello, In order to meet Christmas, Site launched Christmas spree, welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises, look forward to your arrival. Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is "Best quality, Best reputation , Best services". Your satisfaction is our main pursue. You can find the best products from us, meeting your different needs. Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products . Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing! Welcome to come next time ! Thank you! <a href="http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp?id=s76" title="coolforsale.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp?id=s76</a> [coolforsale.com] [ (Tracksuit w) ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket, Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&amp;g) $35 Tshirts (Polo<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping Thanks!!! Advance wish you a merry Christmas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.coolforsale.com/ [ coolforsale.com ] Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello , In order to meet Christmas , Site launched Christmas spree , welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises , look forward to your arrival .
Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is " Best quality , Best reputation , Best services " .
Your satisfaction is our main pursue .
You can find the best products from us , meeting your different needs .
Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products .
Pass by but do n't miss it.Select your favorite clothing !
Welcome to come next time !
Thank you !
http : //www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp ? id = s76 [ coolforsale.com ] [ ( Tracksuit w ) ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket , Air jordan ( 1-24 ) shoes $ 33 Nike shox ( R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3 ) $ 35 Handbags ( Coach lv fendi d&amp;g ) $ 35 Tshirts ( Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste ) $ 16 free shipping Thanks ! ! !
Advance wish you a merry Christmas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.coolforsale.com/ [coolforsale.com]  Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello, In order to meet Christmas, Site launched Christmas spree, welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises, look forward to your arrival.
Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is "Best quality, Best reputation , Best services".
Your satisfaction is our main pursue.
You can find the best products from us, meeting your different needs.
Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products .
Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing!
Welcome to come next time !
Thank you!
http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp?id=s76 [coolforsale.com] [ (Tracksuit w) ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket, Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&amp;g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping Thanks!!!
Advance wish you a merry Christmas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30227676</id>
	<title>Re:In secret?!</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1257185820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Yeah, but if they do it in secret then ratify it, it won't really be law.</p></div></blockquote><p>It is still a step toward avoiding public debate in the creation of new laws, by limiting the amount of time that it is exposed.  Remember how we got DMCA: it was justified as necessary for conforming to the WIPO treaty.</p><p>Step 1: negotiate treaty in secret.  Unlike a statute, the media can't cover it as it gets amended, goes through committees, floors of both houses, etc.</p><p>Step 2: treaty finally exposed to light, the final version is presented as an almost-done deal.  Simple yes/no vote in one body (senate).</p><p>Step 3: Now it's time for a statute, and the very premise of all discussion is that it must conform to the treaty.  The public can debate minor details, I suppose, but if the treaty sucks, the time for addressing the suckiness has passed.  It's too late to talk about the big picture and strategic goals.</p><p>So maybe it ain't law as most people understand it, but it's pretty close to creating law, and through an unusual process designed to avoid scrutiny. It should be taken seriously as a threat.</p><blockquote><div><p>and may even be an act of treason attempting to put the interests and wishes of a corporation or group of corporations above Crown and law.</p></div></blockquote><p>Nobody is going to get charged with treason for writing laws or voting on them a certain way, no matter how contrary to the constitution's intent or wording.  In the entire history of your country, has it <em>ever</em> happened?</p><p>Call it treason if you like, but your scary word isn't going to deter <em>anybody</em> from working against your country.  The only way you're ever going to deter treason is to vote against it, make it so that "traitors" don't get additional terms.  And I don't see that we the voters have a good track record on that either, but at least it's <em>possible.</em></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but if they do it in secret then ratify it , it wo n't really be law.It is still a step toward avoiding public debate in the creation of new laws , by limiting the amount of time that it is exposed .
Remember how we got DMCA : it was justified as necessary for conforming to the WIPO treaty.Step 1 : negotiate treaty in secret .
Unlike a statute , the media ca n't cover it as it gets amended , goes through committees , floors of both houses , etc.Step 2 : treaty finally exposed to light , the final version is presented as an almost-done deal .
Simple yes/no vote in one body ( senate ) .Step 3 : Now it 's time for a statute , and the very premise of all discussion is that it must conform to the treaty .
The public can debate minor details , I suppose , but if the treaty sucks , the time for addressing the suckiness has passed .
It 's too late to talk about the big picture and strategic goals.So maybe it ai n't law as most people understand it , but it 's pretty close to creating law , and through an unusual process designed to avoid scrutiny .
It should be taken seriously as a threat.and may even be an act of treason attempting to put the interests and wishes of a corporation or group of corporations above Crown and law.Nobody is going to get charged with treason for writing laws or voting on them a certain way , no matter how contrary to the constitution 's intent or wording .
In the entire history of your country , has it ever happened ? Call it treason if you like , but your scary word is n't going to deter anybody from working against your country .
The only way you 're ever going to deter treason is to vote against it , make it so that " traitors " do n't get additional terms .
And I do n't see that we the voters have a good track record on that either , but at least it 's possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but if they do it in secret then ratify it, it won't really be law.It is still a step toward avoiding public debate in the creation of new laws, by limiting the amount of time that it is exposed.
Remember how we got DMCA: it was justified as necessary for conforming to the WIPO treaty.Step 1: negotiate treaty in secret.
Unlike a statute, the media can't cover it as it gets amended, goes through committees, floors of both houses, etc.Step 2: treaty finally exposed to light, the final version is presented as an almost-done deal.
Simple yes/no vote in one body (senate).Step 3: Now it's time for a statute, and the very premise of all discussion is that it must conform to the treaty.
The public can debate minor details, I suppose, but if the treaty sucks, the time for addressing the suckiness has passed.
It's too late to talk about the big picture and strategic goals.So maybe it ain't law as most people understand it, but it's pretty close to creating law, and through an unusual process designed to avoid scrutiny.
It should be taken seriously as a threat.and may even be an act of treason attempting to put the interests and wishes of a corporation or group of corporations above Crown and law.Nobody is going to get charged with treason for writing laws or voting on them a certain way, no matter how contrary to the constitution's intent or wording.
In the entire history of your country, has it ever happened?Call it treason if you like, but your scary word isn't going to deter anybody from working against your country.
The only way you're ever going to deter treason is to vote against it, make it so that "traitors" don't get additional terms.
And I don't see that we the voters have a good track record on that either, but at least it's possible.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30232084</id>
	<title>Re:ROFLCOPTER</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1257167700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Free people and free nations...</i></p><p>Are as illusory as pink unicorns shitting gold bricks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Free people and free nations...Are as illusory as pink unicorns shitting gold bricks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free people and free nations...Are as illusory as pink unicorns shitting gold bricks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30225582</id>
	<title>Re:Most insightful department ever</title>
	<author>lawpoop</author>
	<datestamp>1257175260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Call their office, and explain to the aide who answers exactly what your stance is, and how it differs from the form letter you got.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Call their office , and explain to the aide who answers exactly what your stance is , and how it differs from the form letter you got .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Call their office, and explain to the aide who answers exactly what your stance is, and how it differs from the form letter you got.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223482</id>
	<title>Re:In secret?!</title>
	<author>Reed Solomon</author>
	<datestamp>1257193320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you mean like all of those RIAA judges Obama's been appointing to the supreme court?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you mean like all of those RIAA judges Obama 's been appointing to the supreme court ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you mean like all of those RIAA judges Obama's been appointing to the supreme court?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223114</id>
	<title>Re:In secret?!</title>
	<author>Max Littlemore</author>
	<datestamp>1259087880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, but if they do it in secret then ratify it, it won't really be law. Turns out the government can't enact domestic laws simply by signing treaties - or if they try they won't necessarily stand up in court.</p><p>The fact that ACTA is likely to contain punitive measures without a proper hearing will get up most judges noses. I would think it's probably unconstitutional and may even be an act of treason attempting to put the interests and wishes of a corporation or group of corporations above Crown and law. Run the bastards through if they try.</p><p>Most judges don't like it when an elected government tries to go beyond their powers - especially when they remove due process and oversight by the judiciary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but if they do it in secret then ratify it , it wo n't really be law .
Turns out the government ca n't enact domestic laws simply by signing treaties - or if they try they wo n't necessarily stand up in court.The fact that ACTA is likely to contain punitive measures without a proper hearing will get up most judges noses .
I would think it 's probably unconstitutional and may even be an act of treason attempting to put the interests and wishes of a corporation or group of corporations above Crown and law .
Run the bastards through if they try.Most judges do n't like it when an elected government tries to go beyond their powers - especially when they remove due process and oversight by the judiciary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but if they do it in secret then ratify it, it won't really be law.
Turns out the government can't enact domestic laws simply by signing treaties - or if they try they won't necessarily stand up in court.The fact that ACTA is likely to contain punitive measures without a proper hearing will get up most judges noses.
I would think it's probably unconstitutional and may even be an act of treason attempting to put the interests and wishes of a corporation or group of corporations above Crown and law.
Run the bastards through if they try.Most judges don't like it when an elected government tries to go beyond their powers - especially when they remove due process and oversight by the judiciary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30224746</id>
	<title>Bernie Sanders is the Man</title>
	<author>stbill79</author>
	<datestamp>1257166920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I only vaguely recognized the name Bernie Sanders until just recently when someone pointed me to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBnKh6B2cMw" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">this</a> [youtube.com] congressional hearing where he rips Greenspan a new one. Great Stuff!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I only vaguely recognized the name Bernie Sanders until just recently when someone pointed me to this [ youtube.com ] congressional hearing where he rips Greenspan a new one .
Great Stuff !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I only vaguely recognized the name Bernie Sanders until just recently when someone pointed me to this [youtube.com] congressional hearing where he rips Greenspan a new one.
Great Stuff!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222690</id>
	<title>Re:Most insightful department ever</title>
	<author>GumphMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1259082720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The "way out" if ACTA makes it into US (or Australian in my case) law is to cripple the very economy that the people with their fingers in the ACTA pie are claiming to protect.  Don't buy DRM encrusted shite.  If the company openly supports ACTA, or is known to have had a hand in writing it, then don't buy their product at all.  If they want to bleat about the loss of inflated potential earnings they consider their corporate birth-right then we should cause them some actual losses to teach a lesson through their shareholders.  Publish details of every corporate ACTA author, every frivolous law suit, every three-strikes termination, every ludicrous over-reach of reasonable privilege (these are NOT rights, corporate entities and balance sheets are NOT people).  They might claim there's no such thing as bad publicity: bollocks.  Don't cede fair use (I think there would be a rich vein of parody to be had).  Above all, educate the 'sheeple', they can't act on what they don't know (and almost certainly won't be presented to them by the vested interests in the 'media').  If a law is unjust then the people in a democracy have a right to have it changed or overturned and should vote by various means, although I suspect money is the most effective in this case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The " way out " if ACTA makes it into US ( or Australian in my case ) law is to cripple the very economy that the people with their fingers in the ACTA pie are claiming to protect .
Do n't buy DRM encrusted shite .
If the company openly supports ACTA , or is known to have had a hand in writing it , then do n't buy their product at all .
If they want to bleat about the loss of inflated potential earnings they consider their corporate birth-right then we should cause them some actual losses to teach a lesson through their shareholders .
Publish details of every corporate ACTA author , every frivolous law suit , every three-strikes termination , every ludicrous over-reach of reasonable privilege ( these are NOT rights , corporate entities and balance sheets are NOT people ) .
They might claim there 's no such thing as bad publicity : bollocks .
Do n't cede fair use ( I think there would be a rich vein of parody to be had ) .
Above all , educate the 'sheeple ' , they ca n't act on what they do n't know ( and almost certainly wo n't be presented to them by the vested interests in the 'media ' ) .
If a law is unjust then the people in a democracy have a right to have it changed or overturned and should vote by various means , although I suspect money is the most effective in this case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "way out" if ACTA makes it into US (or Australian in my case) law is to cripple the very economy that the people with their fingers in the ACTA pie are claiming to protect.
Don't buy DRM encrusted shite.
If the company openly supports ACTA, or is known to have had a hand in writing it, then don't buy their product at all.
If they want to bleat about the loss of inflated potential earnings they consider their corporate birth-right then we should cause them some actual losses to teach a lesson through their shareholders.
Publish details of every corporate ACTA author, every frivolous law suit, every three-strikes termination, every ludicrous over-reach of reasonable privilege (these are NOT rights, corporate entities and balance sheets are NOT people).
They might claim there's no such thing as bad publicity: bollocks.
Don't cede fair use (I think there would be a rich vein of parody to be had).
Above all, educate the 'sheeple', they can't act on what they don't know (and almost certainly won't be presented to them by the vested interests in the 'media').
If a law is unjust then the people in a democracy have a right to have it changed or overturned and should vote by various means, although I suspect money is the most effective in this case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221936</id>
	<title>President Obama's speech regarding ACTA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259075460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Members of Slashdot, and the American people:<br> <br>

When I spoke here last winter, this nation was facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month. Credit was frozen. And our financial system was on the verge of collapse.<br> <br>

As any American who is still looking for work or a way to pay their bills will tell you, we are by no means out of the woods. A full and vibrant recovery is many months away. And I will not let up until those Americans who seek jobs can find them; until those businesses that seek capital and credit can thrive; until all responsible homeowners can stay in their homes. That is our ultimate goal. But thanks to the bold and decisive action we are taking with ACTA, I can stand here with confidence and say that we will pull this economy back from the brink.<br> <br>

I want to thank the lobbyists of the RIAA, MPAA, ASCAP, and Microsoft corporation for their efforts gettin' my black ass elected, yo. I also want to thank the American people for their patience and resolve putting up with the aforementioned agencies shit to funnel their dollars into my campaign in this difficult time for our nation.<br> <br>

But we did not come here just to clean up pirates. We came to build a future. So tonight, I return to speak to all of you about an issue that is central to that future - and that is the issue of ACTA.<br> <br>

I am not the first President to take up this cause. It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for trustbusting, and oh, what a fool he was. And ever since, nearly every President and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has rightfully invested in national security and American global dominance by investing in our entertainment industries. The ACTA was first introduced by entertainment industry lobbyist Nutty McSchitt in 2001 as a response to 9/11. Eight years later, he continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session.<br> <br>

Our collective failure to meet this challenge - year after year, decade after decade - has led us to a breaking point. Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the entertainment industry who live every day under the threat of unscrupulous neckbeards driving them towards bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare. These are middle-class kids who live in their fathers' basements and spend all day masturbating to 4chan. Many will never get a job. Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still stealing due to previous experience copying their friends' tapes.<br> <br>

We are the only advanced democracy on Earth - the only wealthy nation - that allows such hardships for the facilitators of its largest and most lucrative exports. There are now more than thirty million American songs which have been stolen from illegal "Bit-torrent" sites. In just a two year period, one in every three Americans steals music and movies at some point. And every day, 14,000 Americans listen to stolen music. In other words, anyone you know could be a thief.<br> <br>

But the problem that plagues the entertainment industry is not just a problem of the corporations. Those who listen to stolen music will tend to have less security and stability than they do today. More and more Americans worry that if people keep stealing music, then the corporate CEOs will lose their jobs, or change their jobs, and they'll lose their thirty-million dollar bonuses too. More and more Americans steal their music, only to discover that their computer crashes and is rendered inoperable due to viruses. It happens every day.<br> <br>

One woman from Minnesota lost everything in the middle of court because her lawyer found that she hadn't reported two hundred thousand dollars worth of stolen music sitting on her computer. The lawyer tried to delay the judgement, and he later died in his sleep due to the stress. A printer from Washington was found to be illegally downloading music and movies, just because university students think that they can ge</htmltext>
<tokenext>Members of Slashdot , and the American people : When I spoke here last winter , this nation was facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression .
We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month .
Credit was frozen .
And our financial system was on the verge of collapse .
As any American who is still looking for work or a way to pay their bills will tell you , we are by no means out of the woods .
A full and vibrant recovery is many months away .
And I will not let up until those Americans who seek jobs can find them ; until those businesses that seek capital and credit can thrive ; until all responsible homeowners can stay in their homes .
That is our ultimate goal .
But thanks to the bold and decisive action we are taking with ACTA , I can stand here with confidence and say that we will pull this economy back from the brink .
I want to thank the lobbyists of the RIAA , MPAA , ASCAP , and Microsoft corporation for their efforts gettin ' my black ass elected , yo .
I also want to thank the American people for their patience and resolve putting up with the aforementioned agencies shit to funnel their dollars into my campaign in this difficult time for our nation .
But we did not come here just to clean up pirates .
We came to build a future .
So tonight , I return to speak to all of you about an issue that is central to that future - and that is the issue of ACTA .
I am not the first President to take up this cause .
It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for trustbusting , and oh , what a fool he was .
And ever since , nearly every President and Congress , whether Democrat or Republican , has rightfully invested in national security and American global dominance by investing in our entertainment industries .
The ACTA was first introduced by entertainment industry lobbyist Nutty McSchitt in 2001 as a response to 9/11 .
Eight years later , he continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session .
Our collective failure to meet this challenge - year after year , decade after decade - has led us to a breaking point .
Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the entertainment industry who live every day under the threat of unscrupulous neckbeards driving them towards bankruptcy .
These are not primarily people on welfare .
These are middle-class kids who live in their fathers ' basements and spend all day masturbating to 4chan .
Many will never get a job .
Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still stealing due to previous experience copying their friends ' tapes .
We are the only advanced democracy on Earth - the only wealthy nation - that allows such hardships for the facilitators of its largest and most lucrative exports .
There are now more than thirty million American songs which have been stolen from illegal " Bit-torrent " sites .
In just a two year period , one in every three Americans steals music and movies at some point .
And every day , 14,000 Americans listen to stolen music .
In other words , anyone you know could be a thief .
But the problem that plagues the entertainment industry is not just a problem of the corporations .
Those who listen to stolen music will tend to have less security and stability than they do today .
More and more Americans worry that if people keep stealing music , then the corporate CEOs will lose their jobs , or change their jobs , and they 'll lose their thirty-million dollar bonuses too .
More and more Americans steal their music , only to discover that their computer crashes and is rendered inoperable due to viruses .
It happens every day .
One woman from Minnesota lost everything in the middle of court because her lawyer found that she had n't reported two hundred thousand dollars worth of stolen music sitting on her computer .
The lawyer tried to delay the judgement , and he later died in his sleep due to the stress .
A printer from Washington was found to be illegally downloading music and movies , just because university students think that they can ge</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Members of Slashdot, and the American people: 

When I spoke here last winter, this nation was facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month.
Credit was frozen.
And our financial system was on the verge of collapse.
As any American who is still looking for work or a way to pay their bills will tell you, we are by no means out of the woods.
A full and vibrant recovery is many months away.
And I will not let up until those Americans who seek jobs can find them; until those businesses that seek capital and credit can thrive; until all responsible homeowners can stay in their homes.
That is our ultimate goal.
But thanks to the bold and decisive action we are taking with ACTA, I can stand here with confidence and say that we will pull this economy back from the brink.
I want to thank the lobbyists of the RIAA, MPAA, ASCAP, and Microsoft corporation for their efforts gettin' my black ass elected, yo.
I also want to thank the American people for their patience and resolve putting up with the aforementioned agencies shit to funnel their dollars into my campaign in this difficult time for our nation.
But we did not come here just to clean up pirates.
We came to build a future.
So tonight, I return to speak to all of you about an issue that is central to that future - and that is the issue of ACTA.
I am not the first President to take up this cause.
It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for trustbusting, and oh, what a fool he was.
And ever since, nearly every President and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has rightfully invested in national security and American global dominance by investing in our entertainment industries.
The ACTA was first introduced by entertainment industry lobbyist Nutty McSchitt in 2001 as a response to 9/11.
Eight years later, he continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session.
Our collective failure to meet this challenge - year after year, decade after decade - has led us to a breaking point.
Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the entertainment industry who live every day under the threat of unscrupulous neckbeards driving them towards bankruptcy.
These are not primarily people on welfare.
These are middle-class kids who live in their fathers' basements and spend all day masturbating to 4chan.
Many will never get a job.
Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still stealing due to previous experience copying their friends' tapes.
We are the only advanced democracy on Earth - the only wealthy nation - that allows such hardships for the facilitators of its largest and most lucrative exports.
There are now more than thirty million American songs which have been stolen from illegal "Bit-torrent" sites.
In just a two year period, one in every three Americans steals music and movies at some point.
And every day, 14,000 Americans listen to stolen music.
In other words, anyone you know could be a thief.
But the problem that plagues the entertainment industry is not just a problem of the corporations.
Those who listen to stolen music will tend to have less security and stability than they do today.
More and more Americans worry that if people keep stealing music, then the corporate CEOs will lose their jobs, or change their jobs, and they'll lose their thirty-million dollar bonuses too.
More and more Americans steal their music, only to discover that their computer crashes and is rendered inoperable due to viruses.
It happens every day.
One woman from Minnesota lost everything in the middle of court because her lawyer found that she hadn't reported two hundred thousand dollars worth of stolen music sitting on her computer.
The lawyer tried to delay the judgement, and he later died in his sleep due to the stress.
A printer from Washington was found to be illegally downloading music and movies, just because university students think that they can ge</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222162</id>
	<title>Re:Most insightful department ever</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259077440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just wrote to my senator urging him to help these men fight this injustice. Write to yours, too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just wrote to my senator urging him to help these men fight this injustice .
Write to yours , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just wrote to my senator urging him to help these men fight this injustice.
Write to yours, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222680</id>
	<title>Re:what what the name of that Who song?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259082540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to say the rating of flamebait on the parent post simply exemplifies the point that was being made. It would seems that the ostrich maybe a more appropriate party icon for the far left democrats. i assume this will also be labeled flamebait or troll.. best just to ignore opposition than to confront it with a viable argument.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to say the rating of flamebait on the parent post simply exemplifies the point that was being made .
It would seems that the ostrich maybe a more appropriate party icon for the far left democrats .
i assume this will also be labeled flamebait or troll.. best just to ignore opposition than to confront it with a viable argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to say the rating of flamebait on the parent post simply exemplifies the point that was being made.
It would seems that the ostrich maybe a more appropriate party icon for the far left democrats.
i assume this will also be labeled flamebait or troll.. best just to ignore opposition than to confront it with a viable argument.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222810</id>
	<title>Re:The senators can sign a law that takes a way th</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1259083740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>depends how they phrase it doesn't it...</htmltext>
<tokenext>depends how they phrase it does n't it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>depends how they phrase it doesn't it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222940</id>
	<title>Re:The senators can sign a law that takes a way th</title>
	<author>inode\_buddha</author>
	<datestamp>1259085600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nah. Being a treaty and not a law, they could simply say that it is unenforcable in the US. Either way it would be the same: totally legal, and yet effectively meaningless.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah .
Being a treaty and not a law , they could simply say that it is unenforcable in the US .
Either way it would be the same : totally legal , and yet effectively meaningless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah.
Being a treaty and not a law, they could simply say that it is unenforcable in the US.
Either way it would be the same: totally legal, and yet effectively meaningless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222508</id>
	<title>Re:ROFLCOPTER</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259080860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back before memory was cheap and RAM speeds were fast, we couldn't use a full 32 bits to represent a pixel on the screen. If you did that, even at VGA resolution, you'd end up with approximately 1.2MB of memory reserved just to render to the screen. Double that if you want to have an off-screen buffer to prepare the next frame. On systems that had 8MB of RAM in total you can probably sympathize with the graphics guys when they had to skimp on bpp.</p><p>Even until very recently, many image formats only used 24bpp. Seeing as there's no real need to go above and beyond 8 bits per color, you can save a full fourth of the total memory just cutting out the unnecessary byte. Of course, you lose something very important: the Alpha channel. Suddenly, the great cost savings you get with that extra saved byte mean little since your image now can't blend nicely with anything else.</p><p>Our government is a 2bpp system in a 32bpp world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back before memory was cheap and RAM speeds were fast , we could n't use a full 32 bits to represent a pixel on the screen .
If you did that , even at VGA resolution , you 'd end up with approximately 1.2MB of memory reserved just to render to the screen .
Double that if you want to have an off-screen buffer to prepare the next frame .
On systems that had 8MB of RAM in total you can probably sympathize with the graphics guys when they had to skimp on bpp.Even until very recently , many image formats only used 24bpp .
Seeing as there 's no real need to go above and beyond 8 bits per color , you can save a full fourth of the total memory just cutting out the unnecessary byte .
Of course , you lose something very important : the Alpha channel .
Suddenly , the great cost savings you get with that extra saved byte mean little since your image now ca n't blend nicely with anything else.Our government is a 2bpp system in a 32bpp world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back before memory was cheap and RAM speeds were fast, we couldn't use a full 32 bits to represent a pixel on the screen.
If you did that, even at VGA resolution, you'd end up with approximately 1.2MB of memory reserved just to render to the screen.
Double that if you want to have an off-screen buffer to prepare the next frame.
On systems that had 8MB of RAM in total you can probably sympathize with the graphics guys when they had to skimp on bpp.Even until very recently, many image formats only used 24bpp.
Seeing as there's no real need to go above and beyond 8 bits per color, you can save a full fourth of the total memory just cutting out the unnecessary byte.
Of course, you lose something very important: the Alpha channel.
Suddenly, the great cost savings you get with that extra saved byte mean little since your image now can't blend nicely with anything else.Our government is a 2bpp system in a 32bpp world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222656</id>
	<title>Re:Gonna be modded down but ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259082300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I want to believe.</p><p>I want to believe that we can buy our way out of a recession with money loaned to us by China.</p><p>I want to believe that real change is just around the corner and we just have to wait for the country, economy and rest of the world to catch up.</p><p>I want to believe that we can offer health care to everyone for free without it costing anyone more money.</p><p>I want to believe that we can just blame George Bush for everything that is wrong and with him out of the presidency we don't have to worry about any of those things anymore.</p><p>I want to believe that the US can abandon commitments to the rest of the world without consequences just because our priorities change.  Let Israel, former Soviet countries and everyone else just fend for themselves.</p><p>I want to believe that the US can accept everyone that can make it here as a new citizen without any difficulties.  I want to believe we can take care of them all, because, well, that's the way it should be.</p><p>I want to believe that government managed health care can be free, open to all, and much, much better than what we have today.</p><p>I want to believe that money is irrelevant and we should just focus on goodness, love and peace.</p><p>Unfortunately, it is really hard to believe stuff like this.  I keep trying to convince the bank they should take "peace" and "love" instead of a check for the mortgage.  I try to convince my employees that goodness and love is more important than a salary or benefits.  So far, it isn't working out all that well.</p><p>So as much as I'd like to believe, I am faced with reality which doesn't allow for believing in stuff like this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I want to believe.I want to believe that we can buy our way out of a recession with money loaned to us by China.I want to believe that real change is just around the corner and we just have to wait for the country , economy and rest of the world to catch up.I want to believe that we can offer health care to everyone for free without it costing anyone more money.I want to believe that we can just blame George Bush for everything that is wrong and with him out of the presidency we do n't have to worry about any of those things anymore.I want to believe that the US can abandon commitments to the rest of the world without consequences just because our priorities change .
Let Israel , former Soviet countries and everyone else just fend for themselves.I want to believe that the US can accept everyone that can make it here as a new citizen without any difficulties .
I want to believe we can take care of them all , because , well , that 's the way it should be.I want to believe that government managed health care can be free , open to all , and much , much better than what we have today.I want to believe that money is irrelevant and we should just focus on goodness , love and peace.Unfortunately , it is really hard to believe stuff like this .
I keep trying to convince the bank they should take " peace " and " love " instead of a check for the mortgage .
I try to convince my employees that goodness and love is more important than a salary or benefits .
So far , it is n't working out all that well.So as much as I 'd like to believe , I am faced with reality which does n't allow for believing in stuff like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I want to believe.I want to believe that we can buy our way out of a recession with money loaned to us by China.I want to believe that real change is just around the corner and we just have to wait for the country, economy and rest of the world to catch up.I want to believe that we can offer health care to everyone for free without it costing anyone more money.I want to believe that we can just blame George Bush for everything that is wrong and with him out of the presidency we don't have to worry about any of those things anymore.I want to believe that the US can abandon commitments to the rest of the world without consequences just because our priorities change.
Let Israel, former Soviet countries and everyone else just fend for themselves.I want to believe that the US can accept everyone that can make it here as a new citizen without any difficulties.
I want to believe we can take care of them all, because, well, that's the way it should be.I want to believe that government managed health care can be free, open to all, and much, much better than what we have today.I want to believe that money is irrelevant and we should just focus on goodness, love and peace.Unfortunately, it is really hard to believe stuff like this.
I keep trying to convince the bank they should take "peace" and "love" instead of a check for the mortgage.
I try to convince my employees that goodness and love is more important than a salary or benefits.
So far, it isn't working out all that well.So as much as I'd like to believe, I am faced with reality which doesn't allow for believing in stuff like this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222006</id>
	<title>Most insightful department ever</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259076000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We got more senators than that"</p><p>Indeed. It's a shame that only 2\% of the senate is willing to stand up against this gross violation of transparency and democratic principles. Good luck to Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown and anyone else who might join them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We got more senators than that " Indeed .
It 's a shame that only 2 \ % of the senate is willing to stand up against this gross violation of transparency and democratic principles .
Good luck to Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown and anyone else who might join them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We got more senators than that"Indeed.
It's a shame that only 2\% of the senate is willing to stand up against this gross violation of transparency and democratic principles.
Good luck to Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown and anyone else who might join them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30225296</id>
	<title>Re:Gonna be modded down but ...</title>
	<author>intheshelter</author>
	<datestamp>1257173460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want to believe that you actually understand and admit the huge shit sandwich that was handed to our current President by our former President.</p><p>I want to believe that you're really not this ignorant, and that you're just misrepresenting these issues to dump blame on a President you don't like.</p><p>I want to believe that you'll stick to the topic instead of wasting our time with your drivel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want to believe that you actually understand and admit the huge shit sandwich that was handed to our current President by our former President.I want to believe that you 're really not this ignorant , and that you 're just misrepresenting these issues to dump blame on a President you do n't like.I want to believe that you 'll stick to the topic instead of wasting our time with your drivel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want to believe that you actually understand and admit the huge shit sandwich that was handed to our current President by our former President.I want to believe that you're really not this ignorant, and that you're just misrepresenting these issues to dump blame on a President you don't like.I want to believe that you'll stick to the topic instead of wasting our time with your drivel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30229312</id>
	<title>Re:what what the name of that Who song?</title>
	<author>amplt1337</author>
	<datestamp>1257193140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're disappointed too.  Disappointed, but not surprised.<br>He was the lesser of two evils, and possibly the chance to get some of the young people to pay attention for a few minutes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're disappointed too .
Disappointed , but not surprised.He was the lesser of two evils , and possibly the chance to get some of the young people to pay attention for a few minutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're disappointed too.
Disappointed, but not surprised.He was the lesser of two evils, and possibly the chance to get some of the young people to pay attention for a few minutes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222042</id>
	<title>Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259076300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.  See the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] by CNN.
<p>
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.  These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks).  Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian.  So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern.  Only about 65\% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama.  In other words, a maximum of 65\% support by any ethnic or racial group for <b>either</b> McCain <b>or</b> Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable.  (A maximum of 65\% for McCain is okay.  So, European-American support at 55\% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.)
</p><p>
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.  At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
</p><p>
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.  That claim is an outright lie.  Look at the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#NCDEM" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.  Consider the case of North Carolina.  Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.  Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.  Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.  Why?  African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
</p><p>
Here is the bottom line.  Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.  He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
</p><p>
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.  Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.  Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.  Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.  You need not defend your actions in any way.  Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>During the election , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
See the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] by CNN .
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics , Asian-Americans , etc .
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites ( and other non-Black folks ) .
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian .
So , Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and , hence , serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern .
Only about 65 \ % of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama .
In other words , a maximum of 65 \ % support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and , hence , is acceptable .
( A maximum of 65 \ % for McCain is okay .
So , European-American support at 55 \ % for McCain is well below this threshold and , hence , is not racist .
) If African-Americans were not racist , then at most 65 \ % of them would have supported Obama .
At that level of support , McCain would have won the presidential race .
At this point , African-American supremacists ( and apologists ) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he ( 1 ) is a member of the Democratic party and ( 2 ) supports its ideals .
That claim is an outright lie .
Look at the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] for the Democratic primaries .
Consider the case of North Carolina .
Again , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton .
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats , and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical .
Yet , 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton .
Why ? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
Here is the bottom line .
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America .
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans .
African-Americans have established that expressing " racial pride " by voting on the basis of skin color is 100 \ % acceptable .
Neither the " Wall Street Journal " nor the " New York Times " complained about this racist behavior .
Therefore , in future elections , please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color .
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American .
You need not defend your actions in any way .
Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today 's moral standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
See the exit-polling data [cnn.com] by CNN.
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks).
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian.
So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern.
Only about 65\% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama.
In other words, a maximum of 65\% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable.
(A maximum of 65\% for McCain is okay.
So, European-American support at 55\% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.
)

If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.
At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.
That claim is an outright lie.
Look at the exit-polling data [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.
Consider the case of North Carolina.
Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.
Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.
Why?  African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
Here is the bottom line.
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.
Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.
Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.
You need not defend your actions in any way.
Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222258</id>
	<title>Re:Most insightful department ever</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1259078400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Brown's been on the good side of technology legislation for a LONG time, when he was over in the House he served on the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet and was almost always on the side of the citizenry. Every time I've written him about issues concerning me I have received a detailed and thought-out response, some signed by him personally. I've also had the pleasure to meet him in person on numerous occasions and even had the chance to follow-up on some of those letters. He remembered details of my correspondence so I'm fairly certain they were not simply responded too by staffers. He might not be as approachable today as a senator has significantly more constituents but I doubt he cares less about them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Brown 's been on the good side of technology legislation for a LONG time , when he was over in the House he served on the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet and was almost always on the side of the citizenry .
Every time I 've written him about issues concerning me I have received a detailed and thought-out response , some signed by him personally .
I 've also had the pleasure to meet him in person on numerous occasions and even had the chance to follow-up on some of those letters .
He remembered details of my correspondence so I 'm fairly certain they were not simply responded too by staffers .
He might not be as approachable today as a senator has significantly more constituents but I doubt he cares less about them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Brown's been on the good side of technology legislation for a LONG time, when he was over in the House he served on the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet and was almost always on the side of the citizenry.
Every time I've written him about issues concerning me I have received a detailed and thought-out response, some signed by him personally.
I've also had the pleasure to meet him in person on numerous occasions and even had the chance to follow-up on some of those letters.
He remembered details of my correspondence so I'm fairly certain they were not simply responded too by staffers.
He might not be as approachable today as a senator has significantly more constituents but I doubt he cares less about them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222006</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2234210_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2234210_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2234210_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2234210_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30224378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2234210_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30225296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2234210_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2234210_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30225526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2234210_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2234210_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30232084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2234210_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2234210_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2234210_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2234210_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2234210_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30226086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2234210_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2234210_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2234210_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2234210_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30226392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2234210_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30225582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2234210_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2234210_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30230812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2234210_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30229468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2234210_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30225826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2234210_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30227676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2234210_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2234210_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2234210_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30225426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2234210_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2234210_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30229312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2234210_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30225278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2234210_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2234210_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2234210_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30224642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2234210_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2234210_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_2234210_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_2234210.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30224378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222656
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30226392
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30225296
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_2234210.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222104
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_2234210.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_2234210.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223304
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_2234210.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30229312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_2234210.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30224642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30225526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222508
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223366
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30226086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30232084
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_2234210.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_2234210.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222258
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222108
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30225582
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222690
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30225278
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30229468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222132
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222214
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_2234210.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30224746
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_2234210.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30221932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223114
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223482
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30225426
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30225826
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223312
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30227676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222042
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222220
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30230812
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222450
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_2234210.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222504
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222940
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30222794
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_2234210.30223130
</commentlist>
</conversation>
