<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_28_132256</id>
	<title>Colleges Struggling With the Digital Bathroom Wall</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1259418960000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>theodp writes <i>"Back in the day, anonymous character assassination was confined to permanent marker scrawl in bathroom stalls. But now, thanks to sites like the student-run CollegeACB.com (ACB=Anonymous Confession Board), which can get hundreds of thousands of hits on a good day, TIME reports that <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1942971-1,00.html">anonymous slander is going viral on campus</a>. Even the most elite universities &mdash; normally the land of the politically correct &mdash; have been <a href="http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/college/article885739.ece">struggling with the problem of anonymous gossip sites</a> and their very un-PC posts, which an Amherst dean likens to 'the worst of junior high.' If he thinks things are bad now, wait until the kids start getting creative with <a href="http://www.google.com/sidewiki/intl/en/index.html">Google Sidewiki</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>theodp writes " Back in the day , anonymous character assassination was confined to permanent marker scrawl in bathroom stalls .
But now , thanks to sites like the student-run CollegeACB.com ( ACB = Anonymous Confession Board ) , which can get hundreds of thousands of hits on a good day , TIME reports that anonymous slander is going viral on campus .
Even the most elite universities    normally the land of the politically correct    have been struggling with the problem of anonymous gossip sites and their very un-PC posts , which an Amherst dean likens to 'the worst of junior high .
' If he thinks things are bad now , wait until the kids start getting creative with Google Sidewiki .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theodp writes "Back in the day, anonymous character assassination was confined to permanent marker scrawl in bathroom stalls.
But now, thanks to sites like the student-run CollegeACB.com (ACB=Anonymous Confession Board), which can get hundreds of thousands of hits on a good day, TIME reports that anonymous slander is going viral on campus.
Even the most elite universities — normally the land of the politically correct — have been struggling with the problem of anonymous gossip sites and their very un-PC posts, which an Amherst dean likens to 'the worst of junior high.
' If he thinks things are bad now, wait until the kids start getting creative with Google Sidewiki.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256888</id>
	<title>Re:PC, huh?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1259404620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The same reason is why I don't believe in "affermative action", i.e. "positive prejudice". I don't care if someone is black, white or polka dotted red and blue, what I care about is whether he can do his job. If you don't and have to heed some equality rights, the stigma of being what has been dubbed around here already the "quota nigger" (sorry for the slur) will always hang over your head if you're hired on some AA guideline. You're in because you have the "right" color, sex, religion, country of origin or whatever the AA agenda may be, not because you're good.</p><p>No matter whether you're good or not. You can be the best person for that job, you will never be seen as anything but the guy being hired because we had to.</p><p>I do admit that it is harder for people who have to fight prejudice. Trust me, I know, being a member of a minority group (which is not as obvious as the color of my skin, but still...), but asking for free rides is not going to break down the walls, if anything it makes them stronger. It hands ammunition to those that try to keep you down, because now not only are you $prejudice\_slur, but also get everything crammed up your ass because you're such a poor $member\_of\_minority\_group. If anything, it increases the hatred towards minorities, it certainly won't reduce it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The same reason is why I do n't believe in " affermative action " , i.e .
" positive prejudice " .
I do n't care if someone is black , white or polka dotted red and blue , what I care about is whether he can do his job .
If you do n't and have to heed some equality rights , the stigma of being what has been dubbed around here already the " quota nigger " ( sorry for the slur ) will always hang over your head if you 're hired on some AA guideline .
You 're in because you have the " right " color , sex , religion , country of origin or whatever the AA agenda may be , not because you 're good.No matter whether you 're good or not .
You can be the best person for that job , you will never be seen as anything but the guy being hired because we had to.I do admit that it is harder for people who have to fight prejudice .
Trust me , I know , being a member of a minority group ( which is not as obvious as the color of my skin , but still... ) , but asking for free rides is not going to break down the walls , if anything it makes them stronger .
It hands ammunition to those that try to keep you down , because now not only are you $ prejudice \ _slur , but also get everything crammed up your ass because you 're such a poor $ member \ _of \ _minority \ _group .
If anything , it increases the hatred towards minorities , it certainly wo n't reduce it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same reason is why I don't believe in "affermative action", i.e.
"positive prejudice".
I don't care if someone is black, white or polka dotted red and blue, what I care about is whether he can do his job.
If you don't and have to heed some equality rights, the stigma of being what has been dubbed around here already the "quota nigger" (sorry for the slur) will always hang over your head if you're hired on some AA guideline.
You're in because you have the "right" color, sex, religion, country of origin or whatever the AA agenda may be, not because you're good.No matter whether you're good or not.
You can be the best person for that job, you will never be seen as anything but the guy being hired because we had to.I do admit that it is harder for people who have to fight prejudice.
Trust me, I know, being a member of a minority group (which is not as obvious as the color of my skin, but still...), but asking for free rides is not going to break down the walls, if anything it makes them stronger.
It hands ammunition to those that try to keep you down, because now not only are you $prejudice\_slur, but also get everything crammed up your ass because you're such a poor $member\_of\_minority\_group.
If anything, it increases the hatred towards minorities, it certainly won't reduce it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256396</id>
	<title>Re:futile struggle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259399400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi, my name is Chris Hansen..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi , my name is Chris Hansen. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi, my name is Chris Hansen..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256196</id>
	<title>Re:futile struggle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259440380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right, however, if you're too immature to take it that's your fault. There are people too immature to handle decorating their rooms, my sister is upstairs crying because she can't find a border for her wall right now. Should we make rules about that? No. She's a dumbass, maybe someday she'll grow out of it, but for now, it's her own fault.</p><p>Now, should I try to help her? Maybe. Make rules about it? No.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right , however , if you 're too immature to take it that 's your fault .
There are people too immature to handle decorating their rooms , my sister is upstairs crying because she ca n't find a border for her wall right now .
Should we make rules about that ?
No. She 's a dumbass , maybe someday she 'll grow out of it , but for now , it 's her own fault.Now , should I try to help her ?
Maybe. Make rules about it ?
No .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right, however, if you're too immature to take it that's your fault.
There are people too immature to handle decorating their rooms, my sister is upstairs crying because she can't find a border for her wall right now.
Should we make rules about that?
No. She's a dumbass, maybe someday she'll grow out of it, but for now, it's her own fault.Now, should I try to help her?
Maybe. Make rules about it?
No.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30259766</id>
	<title>Re:Uh, no, not really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259485320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At the end of the day, what the promoters of PC achieve is to make virtually all writing or speech from the past appear "offensive". It makes sense if your aim is to destroy the intellectual foundation of society and replace it with a new foundation based on a particular ideology. There's no need to burn the books if you can convince everyone that they're too "offensive" to read.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the end of the day , what the promoters of PC achieve is to make virtually all writing or speech from the past appear " offensive " .
It makes sense if your aim is to destroy the intellectual foundation of society and replace it with a new foundation based on a particular ideology .
There 's no need to burn the books if you can convince everyone that they 're too " offensive " to read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the end of the day, what the promoters of PC achieve is to make virtually all writing or speech from the past appear "offensive".
It makes sense if your aim is to destroy the intellectual foundation of society and replace it with a new foundation based on a particular ideology.
There's no need to burn the books if you can convince everyone that they're too "offensive" to read.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256570</id>
	<title>Re:So, it's...</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1259401080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can't be brought back to a place you never left.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't be brought back to a place you never left .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't be brought back to a place you never left.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30257750</id>
	<title>Re:futile struggle</title>
	<author>swillden</author>
	<datestamp>1259414940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You spend time watching 14 year old girls, on facebook?</p></div><p>I watch my 14 year-old daughter's interactions with her friends.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You spend time watching 14 year old girls , on facebook ? I watch my 14 year-old daughter 's interactions with her friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You spend time watching 14 year old girls, on facebook?I watch my 14 year-old daughter's interactions with her friends.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255010</id>
	<title>Re:PC, huh?</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1259429160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Political correctness is just an impossible game of cat-and-mouse using weird terms until the terms become popular and you have to use newer ones, making reading older texts on subjects like psychological disabilities impossible. When you get streaks of renaming like mongolism -&gt; Down syndrome -&gt; trisomy 21 and stupid -&gt; mentally retarded -&gt; mentally challenged -&gt; differently abled (or whatever the current one is) communicating becomes a nightmare.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Political correctness is just an impossible game of cat-and-mouse using weird terms until the terms become popular and you have to use newer ones , making reading older texts on subjects like psychological disabilities impossible .
When you get streaks of renaming like mongolism - &gt; Down syndrome - &gt; trisomy 21 and stupid - &gt; mentally retarded - &gt; mentally challenged - &gt; differently abled ( or whatever the current one is ) communicating becomes a nightmare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Political correctness is just an impossible game of cat-and-mouse using weird terms until the terms become popular and you have to use newer ones, making reading older texts on subjects like psychological disabilities impossible.
When you get streaks of renaming like mongolism -&gt; Down syndrome -&gt; trisomy 21 and stupid -&gt; mentally retarded -&gt; mentally challenged -&gt; differently abled (or whatever the current one is) communicating becomes a nightmare.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254460</id>
	<title>Anonymous coward posted</title>
	<author>hyperion2010</author>
	<datestamp>1259422980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Welcome to the internet, please enjoy your stay or GTFO promptly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to the internet , please enjoy your stay or GTFO promptly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to the internet, please enjoy your stay or GTFO promptly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254628</id>
	<title>Re:PC, huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259424960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>That depends on what you consider to be PC or un-PC.<p>Bill Cosby said some things about his community a while ago that was <i>very</i> un-PC, but he felt it needed to be said. White people have said the same things before (as well as less prominent Blacks) but were then called "racist" or "bigots", then ignored and in the meantime, the problems in the community continued. Of course, <i>all</i> of those problems were always blamed on others and never on the community - ex. not getting education because it was a "white" thing and then being angry and pissed when the only jobs they can get are janitors which then lead to more rancor and beliefs about being oppressed and what not.</p><p>And it's not only the African American community it's across all racial and religious lines . Although, it's just that it's PC to say anything about white males.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That depends on what you consider to be PC or un-PC.Bill Cosby said some things about his community a while ago that was very un-PC , but he felt it needed to be said .
White people have said the same things before ( as well as less prominent Blacks ) but were then called " racist " or " bigots " , then ignored and in the meantime , the problems in the community continued .
Of course , all of those problems were always blamed on others and never on the community - ex .
not getting education because it was a " white " thing and then being angry and pissed when the only jobs they can get are janitors which then lead to more rancor and beliefs about being oppressed and what not.And it 's not only the African American community it 's across all racial and religious lines .
Although , it 's just that it 's PC to say anything about white males .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That depends on what you consider to be PC or un-PC.Bill Cosby said some things about his community a while ago that was very un-PC, but he felt it needed to be said.
White people have said the same things before (as well as less prominent Blacks) but were then called "racist" or "bigots", then ignored and in the meantime, the problems in the community continued.
Of course, all of those problems were always blamed on others and never on the community - ex.
not getting education because it was a "white" thing and then being angry and pissed when the only jobs they can get are janitors which then lead to more rancor and beliefs about being oppressed and what not.And it's not only the African American community it's across all racial and religious lines .
Although, it's just that it's PC to say anything about white males.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256760</id>
	<title>Re:Uh, no, not really</title>
	<author>baKanale</author>
	<datestamp>1259402940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And when you add the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#Euphemism\_treadmill" title="wikipedia.org">euphemism treadmill</a> [wikipedia.org] you get a giant mess.  First you call people who can't walk "lame", but that's insulting, so you say "crippled".  But eventually <i>that</i> is labeled "incorrect", so you switch to "handicapped", then "disabled", then "physically challenged", then "differently abled"!  What's next?  "Specially embodied"?  "Uniquely limbed"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And when you add the euphemism treadmill [ wikipedia.org ] you get a giant mess .
First you call people who ca n't walk " lame " , but that 's insulting , so you say " crippled " .
But eventually that is labeled " incorrect " , so you switch to " handicapped " , then " disabled " , then " physically challenged " , then " differently abled " !
What 's next ?
" Specially embodied " ?
" Uniquely limbed " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And when you add the euphemism treadmill [wikipedia.org] you get a giant mess.
First you call people who can't walk "lame", but that's insulting, so you say "crippled".
But eventually that is labeled "incorrect", so you switch to "handicapped", then "disabled", then "physically challenged", then "differently abled"!
What's next?
"Specially embodied"?
"Uniquely limbed"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255450</id>
	<title>Re:No you are wrong.</title>
	<author>Lehk228</author>
	<datestamp>1259433540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you mean language like saying "happy holidays" then being accused of personally crucifying the baby jesus because you didn't say "merry christmas"?<br> <br>the biggest PC whiners these days are the right wing fundies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>you mean language like saying " happy holidays " then being accused of personally crucifying the baby jesus because you did n't say " merry christmas " ?
the biggest PC whiners these days are the right wing fundies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you mean language like saying "happy holidays" then being accused of personally crucifying the baby jesus because you didn't say "merry christmas"?
the biggest PC whiners these days are the right wing fundies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30266722</id>
	<title>Re:futile struggle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259517240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think people with a low <a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/viscous" title="wiktionary.org" rel="nofollow">viscosity</a> [wiktionary.org] would be frightening.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think people with a low viscosity [ wiktionary.org ] would be frightening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think people with a low viscosity [wiktionary.org] would be frightening.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30261042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256170</id>
	<title>Re:Herpes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259440260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there's nothing they can do about free speech</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there 's nothing they can do about free speech</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there's nothing they can do about free speech</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30257936</id>
	<title>Re:futile struggle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259416680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30261228</id>
	<title>Re:PC, huh?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1259508780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And, worse, these trends change a lot.  In Britain, it is politically correct to call people with dark skin black, but offensive to call them coloured.  In the USA, it is (apparently) the other way around.  In the UK, I believe the change was spurred by things like this poem:<p><div class="quote"><p>When I was born, I was black.<br>
When I grew up, I was black.<br>
When I get hot, I am black.<br>
When I get cold, I am black.<br>
When I am sick, I am black.<br>
When I die, I am black.<br>
<br>
When you were born, You were pink.<br>
When you grew up, You were white.<br>
When you get hot, You go red.<br>
When you get cold, You go blue.<br>
When you are sick, You go purple.<br>
When you die, You go green.<br>
<br>
AND YET YOU HAVE THE CHEEK TO CALL ME COLOURED!!!</p></div><p>
I just spent ten minutes trying to find an authoritative source for this (I remember reading it at school) and found it attributed to Malcolm X and to a few other sources, mostly it seems to be unattributed.  If it really was Malcolm X, I'm surprised the same isn't true in the USA.  Given that we are taught at school that black is the absence of colour, it always seemed bizarre to me that black people could be referred to as coloured.  </p><p>
Calling someone African American is just silly.  I've met black Americans who find it offensive (they don't think of themselves as African; they're Americans and their ancestors, like mine and everyone else's, originally came from Africa) and when referring to non-Americans it's just nonsensical.  When referring to Australian Aboriginals it's completely ridiculous; they're neither African, nor American.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And , worse , these trends change a lot .
In Britain , it is politically correct to call people with dark skin black , but offensive to call them coloured .
In the USA , it is ( apparently ) the other way around .
In the UK , I believe the change was spurred by things like this poem : When I was born , I was black .
When I grew up , I was black .
When I get hot , I am black .
When I get cold , I am black .
When I am sick , I am black .
When I die , I am black .
When you were born , You were pink .
When you grew up , You were white .
When you get hot , You go red .
When you get cold , You go blue .
When you are sick , You go purple .
When you die , You go green .
AND YET YOU HAVE THE CHEEK TO CALL ME COLOURED ! ! !
I just spent ten minutes trying to find an authoritative source for this ( I remember reading it at school ) and found it attributed to Malcolm X and to a few other sources , mostly it seems to be unattributed .
If it really was Malcolm X , I 'm surprised the same is n't true in the USA .
Given that we are taught at school that black is the absence of colour , it always seemed bizarre to me that black people could be referred to as coloured .
Calling someone African American is just silly .
I 've met black Americans who find it offensive ( they do n't think of themselves as African ; they 're Americans and their ancestors , like mine and everyone else 's , originally came from Africa ) and when referring to non-Americans it 's just nonsensical .
When referring to Australian Aboriginals it 's completely ridiculous ; they 're neither African , nor American .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And, worse, these trends change a lot.
In Britain, it is politically correct to call people with dark skin black, but offensive to call them coloured.
In the USA, it is (apparently) the other way around.
In the UK, I believe the change was spurred by things like this poem:When I was born, I was black.
When I grew up, I was black.
When I get hot, I am black.
When I get cold, I am black.
When I am sick, I am black.
When I die, I am black.
When you were born, You were pink.
When you grew up, You were white.
When you get hot, You go red.
When you get cold, You go blue.
When you are sick, You go purple.
When you die, You go green.
AND YET YOU HAVE THE CHEEK TO CALL ME COLOURED!!!
I just spent ten minutes trying to find an authoritative source for this (I remember reading it at school) and found it attributed to Malcolm X and to a few other sources, mostly it seems to be unattributed.
If it really was Malcolm X, I'm surprised the same isn't true in the USA.
Given that we are taught at school that black is the absence of colour, it always seemed bizarre to me that black people could be referred to as coloured.
Calling someone African American is just silly.
I've met black Americans who find it offensive (they don't think of themselves as African; they're Americans and their ancestors, like mine and everyone else's, originally came from Africa) and when referring to non-Americans it's just nonsensical.
When referring to Australian Aboriginals it's completely ridiculous; they're neither African, nor American.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254880</id>
	<title>oh no... it's up on slashdot now?</title>
	<author>crazycheetah</author>
	<datestamp>1259427720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTFA: "ACB logged a record 480,000 hits in one day in early November"</p><p>Maybe today will break that record, with it posted up on slashdot now...</p><p>If it does, at least I know  I contributed! Haha!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FTFA : " ACB logged a record 480,000 hits in one day in early November " Maybe today will break that record , with it posted up on slashdot now...If it does , at least I know I contributed !
Haha !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTFA: "ACB logged a record 480,000 hits in one day in early November"Maybe today will break that record, with it posted up on slashdot now...If it does, at least I know  I contributed!
Haha!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30257962</id>
	<title>Re:So, it's...cancer?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259416860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>4chan for Harvard?</p></div><p>So I hurd ur thesis iz on mudkips?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>4chan for Harvard ? So I hurd ur thesis iz on mudkips ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4chan for Harvard?So I hurd ur thesis iz on mudkips?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255032</id>
	<title>Uh, no, not really</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1259429340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you been encased in a cement bunker for 20 years? "PC" is not just about avoiding overt insults or, say, the fact that we have condom ads on television now with a guy getting his junk buffed in a wind tunnel. When recent polls in the polls in the UK indicate that 80\% of the population is tired of political correctness, you have a real problem, not a generation gap.</p><p>When people complain about PC, they mean the sort that causes valid or even scientific discussion from even taking place because some hypersensitive miseryshit somewhere might be offended.</p><p>It's the sort of PC that chastises a kid in a Halloween pirate costume for wearing an eye patch because it's offensive to the disabled. Oops, I mean differently-abled! Sorry! Don't sue me for causing emotional distress, please! It's curious they never seem to ask an actual other-abled person. No, wait, "other" sounds exclusionary doesn't it? Argh! The low seas of PC be treacherous, me mateys!</p><p>Political correctness also seems to be covering hypersensitivity to safety, so you have it applied to cases where trapeze artists are required to wear hard hats or the Army is told to make their training courses safer to the point of, well, pointlessness. That seems odd to me, but the street finds its own uses for words, much like hacker is used in place of cracker by the general population. Language evolves- deal with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you been encased in a cement bunker for 20 years ?
" PC " is not just about avoiding overt insults or , say , the fact that we have condom ads on television now with a guy getting his junk buffed in a wind tunnel .
When recent polls in the polls in the UK indicate that 80 \ % of the population is tired of political correctness , you have a real problem , not a generation gap.When people complain about PC , they mean the sort that causes valid or even scientific discussion from even taking place because some hypersensitive miseryshit somewhere might be offended.It 's the sort of PC that chastises a kid in a Halloween pirate costume for wearing an eye patch because it 's offensive to the disabled .
Oops , I mean differently-abled !
Sorry ! Do n't sue me for causing emotional distress , please !
It 's curious they never seem to ask an actual other-abled person .
No , wait , " other " sounds exclusionary does n't it ?
Argh ! The low seas of PC be treacherous , me mateys ! Political correctness also seems to be covering hypersensitivity to safety , so you have it applied to cases where trapeze artists are required to wear hard hats or the Army is told to make their training courses safer to the point of , well , pointlessness .
That seems odd to me , but the street finds its own uses for words , much like hacker is used in place of cracker by the general population .
Language evolves- deal with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you been encased in a cement bunker for 20 years?
"PC" is not just about avoiding overt insults or, say, the fact that we have condom ads on television now with a guy getting his junk buffed in a wind tunnel.
When recent polls in the polls in the UK indicate that 80\% of the population is tired of political correctness, you have a real problem, not a generation gap.When people complain about PC, they mean the sort that causes valid or even scientific discussion from even taking place because some hypersensitive miseryshit somewhere might be offended.It's the sort of PC that chastises a kid in a Halloween pirate costume for wearing an eye patch because it's offensive to the disabled.
Oops, I mean differently-abled!
Sorry! Don't sue me for causing emotional distress, please!
It's curious they never seem to ask an actual other-abled person.
No, wait, "other" sounds exclusionary doesn't it?
Argh! The low seas of PC be treacherous, me mateys!Political correctness also seems to be covering hypersensitivity to safety, so you have it applied to cases where trapeze artists are required to wear hard hats or the Army is told to make their training courses safer to the point of, well, pointlessness.
That seems odd to me, but the street finds its own uses for words, much like hacker is used in place of cracker by the general population.
Language evolves- deal with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30270358</id>
	<title>Re:Anonymous coward posted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259599200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>did anyone else look at the reply button and think it said "Reply to tits" ?  (*ducks for cover*)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>did anyone else look at the reply button and think it said " Reply to tits " ?
( * ducks for cover * )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>did anyone else look at the reply button and think it said "Reply to tits" ?
(*ducks for cover*)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254570</id>
	<title>Just another prime example of why anonomize</title>
	<author>jhoegl</author>
	<datestamp>1259424240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Remember back in the day when the internet was for good?  It was developed to exchange ideas between thought provoking people in an effort to enhance our way of life and understanding of it.  Not now baby, WOOO!  Its high school schoolyard antics with a twist... no one knows that you, the bully, are doing the bullying.  So now you cant get jacked in the jaw or counter harassed because your life is worse than those you are making fun of.  No consequences baby... WOO!  Anonymous has its place in society, but this is just abusive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember back in the day when the internet was for good ?
It was developed to exchange ideas between thought provoking people in an effort to enhance our way of life and understanding of it .
Not now baby , WOOO !
Its high school schoolyard antics with a twist... no one knows that you , the bully , are doing the bullying .
So now you cant get jacked in the jaw or counter harassed because your life is worse than those you are making fun of .
No consequences baby... WOO ! Anonymous has its place in society , but this is just abusive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember back in the day when the internet was for good?
It was developed to exchange ideas between thought provoking people in an effort to enhance our way of life and understanding of it.
Not now baby, WOOO!
Its high school schoolyard antics with a twist... no one knows that you, the bully, are doing the bullying.
So now you cant get jacked in the jaw or counter harassed because your life is worse than those you are making fun of.
No consequences baby... WOO!  Anonymous has its place in society, but this is just abusive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255252</id>
	<title>Re:futile struggle</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1259431320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Really, it's futile in the long term to try and ban "harassment comments" or whatever you want to call it, unless you want to really compromise free speech and become worse than China."</p><p>Sure, because making infantile comments about other people is just as important as being able to speak freely about your government's policies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Really , it 's futile in the long term to try and ban " harassment comments " or whatever you want to call it , unless you want to really compromise free speech and become worse than China .
" Sure , because making infantile comments about other people is just as important as being able to speak freely about your government 's policies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Really, it's futile in the long term to try and ban "harassment comments" or whatever you want to call it, unless you want to really compromise free speech and become worse than China.
"Sure, because making infantile comments about other people is just as important as being able to speak freely about your government's policies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254912</id>
	<title>Re:PC, huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259428020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Boy, you just tarred yourself with your own brush.</p><p>How do you know your version of "Politeness" is any better than theirs?</p><p>You now celebrate slurs and degrading language that were once frowned on. You now forbid discussion of topics that were once allowed.</p><p>The more things change, the more they stay the same.</p><p>Now, get off my lawn!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Boy , you just tarred yourself with your own brush.How do you know your version of " Politeness " is any better than theirs ? You now celebrate slurs and degrading language that were once frowned on .
You now forbid discussion of topics that were once allowed.The more things change , the more they stay the same.Now , get off my lawn !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boy, you just tarred yourself with your own brush.How do you know your version of "Politeness" is any better than theirs?You now celebrate slurs and degrading language that were once frowned on.
You now forbid discussion of topics that were once allowed.The more things change, the more they stay the same.Now, get off my lawn!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254656</id>
	<title>Consumers Guide to MIT Men</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259425320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is hardly a new problem. Check out the old "Consumers Guide to MIT Men", a 1970's rating book for MIT men in bed designed to mock the rating guides for easy lays published internally by the fraternities of the day. Sadly, the book failed to mention that the authors were sleeping with drunk boys from the "Strat's Rat" bar at MIT, where the high male/female ratio and cheap liquor contributed to their research.</p><p>They tried to censor that, too. And make no mistake: the great desire of university publicity departments and administrators is to shut down such documents, not to prevent slander or libel. We need to be very careful about what actually gets blocked: anonymous has a long, proud history in the US dating back to Thomas Paine and the Federalist papers, and the courts are quite aware of how chilling of free speech even mild restraints can be. The anonymity is critical to protect people from repercussion: www.wikileaks.org is critical proof of this, and I highly recommend it for people to see how amazing the information their bosses and newspapers and governments don't publish really is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is hardly a new problem .
Check out the old " Consumers Guide to MIT Men " , a 1970 's rating book for MIT men in bed designed to mock the rating guides for easy lays published internally by the fraternities of the day .
Sadly , the book failed to mention that the authors were sleeping with drunk boys from the " Strat 's Rat " bar at MIT , where the high male/female ratio and cheap liquor contributed to their research.They tried to censor that , too .
And make no mistake : the great desire of university publicity departments and administrators is to shut down such documents , not to prevent slander or libel .
We need to be very careful about what actually gets blocked : anonymous has a long , proud history in the US dating back to Thomas Paine and the Federalist papers , and the courts are quite aware of how chilling of free speech even mild restraints can be .
The anonymity is critical to protect people from repercussion : www.wikileaks.org is critical proof of this , and I highly recommend it for people to see how amazing the information their bosses and newspapers and governments do n't publish really is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is hardly a new problem.
Check out the old "Consumers Guide to MIT Men", a 1970's rating book for MIT men in bed designed to mock the rating guides for easy lays published internally by the fraternities of the day.
Sadly, the book failed to mention that the authors were sleeping with drunk boys from the "Strat's Rat" bar at MIT, where the high male/female ratio and cheap liquor contributed to their research.They tried to censor that, too.
And make no mistake: the great desire of university publicity departments and administrators is to shut down such documents, not to prevent slander or libel.
We need to be very careful about what actually gets blocked: anonymous has a long, proud history in the US dating back to Thomas Paine and the Federalist papers, and the courts are quite aware of how chilling of free speech even mild restraints can be.
The anonymity is critical to protect people from repercussion: www.wikileaks.org is critical proof of this, and I highly recommend it for people to see how amazing the information their bosses and newspapers and governments don't publish really is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255364</id>
	<title>Re:PC, huh?</title>
	<author>Arthur Grumbine</author>
	<datestamp>1259432820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When you get white Americans calling European nationals who happen to be black 'African Americans' it's gone too far.</p></div><p>Exemplified by the brilliant satire of Sacha Baron Cohen, in <i>Br&#252;no</i>:<br>
<b>Br&#252;no:</b> There's a lot of African Americans in Africa!<br>
<b>African-American Lady:</b> No! There's a lot of Africans in Africa!<br>
<b>Br&#252;no:</b> That's racist!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you get white Americans calling European nationals who happen to be black 'African Americans ' it 's gone too far.Exemplified by the brilliant satire of Sacha Baron Cohen , in Br   no : Br   no : There 's a lot of African Americans in Africa !
African-American Lady : No !
There 's a lot of Africans in Africa !
Br   no : That 's racist !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you get white Americans calling European nationals who happen to be black 'African Americans' it's gone too far.Exemplified by the brilliant satire of Sacha Baron Cohen, in Brüno:
Brüno: There's a lot of African Americans in Africa!
African-American Lady: No!
There's a lot of Africans in Africa!
Brüno: That's racist!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254832</id>
	<title>Re:So, it's...</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1259427300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"4chan for Harvard?"</p><p>Lulzworthy!<br>I favor anything that "helps" the public view graduates of such schools with less respect.</p><p>Since the internet rarely forgets, it will be a hoot when some of this comes back to bite the high and mighty as they rise up the political ladder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" 4chan for Harvard ?
" Lulzworthy ! I favor anything that " helps " the public view graduates of such schools with less respect.Since the internet rarely forgets , it will be a hoot when some of this comes back to bite the high and mighty as they rise up the political ladder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"4chan for Harvard?
"Lulzworthy!I favor anything that "helps" the public view graduates of such schools with less respect.Since the internet rarely forgets, it will be a hoot when some of this comes back to bite the high and mighty as they rise up the political ladder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254866</id>
	<title>Re:futile struggle</title>
	<author>swillden</author>
	<datestamp>1259427660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe instead stop being so bloody touchy about stupid things stupid people write? What is it we've told our children for ages - "stop caring, don't give it attention"?</p></div><p>That's a nice theory, but it's a really hard thing for people, especially immature people, to do.

</p><p>Teenagers in particular are extremely sensitive to criticism, and often respond poorly.  Spend some time watching the interactions of a group of, say, 14 year-old girls on Facebook.  Vicious doesn't begin to describe it.  People in general are willing to say things behind the shield of their computer that they would never say face to face.  Add to that some low self-esteem and peer approval dependency and you have a recipe for a whole lot of heartache.  Kids have always been mean to one another, and always will, but online interaction raises it to a new level.

</p><p>Kids in college are a little more mature and self-confident, but only a little.  And there's a lot of variability, so you can expect these online fora to be filled with the spew of the least mature, the least secure and the most vicious.

</p><p>It will indeed be interesting to see how society evolves in response.  Hopefully we'll all develop a thicker skin and learn to be more forgiving of all sorts of errors.  That would be a good solution, and would actually make the world a better place than it used to be.  Another possibility is that the next generation is going to grow up almost universally traumatized and defensive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe instead stop being so bloody touchy about stupid things stupid people write ?
What is it we 've told our children for ages - " stop caring , do n't give it attention " ? That 's a nice theory , but it 's a really hard thing for people , especially immature people , to do .
Teenagers in particular are extremely sensitive to criticism , and often respond poorly .
Spend some time watching the interactions of a group of , say , 14 year-old girls on Facebook .
Vicious does n't begin to describe it .
People in general are willing to say things behind the shield of their computer that they would never say face to face .
Add to that some low self-esteem and peer approval dependency and you have a recipe for a whole lot of heartache .
Kids have always been mean to one another , and always will , but online interaction raises it to a new level .
Kids in college are a little more mature and self-confident , but only a little .
And there 's a lot of variability , so you can expect these online fora to be filled with the spew of the least mature , the least secure and the most vicious .
It will indeed be interesting to see how society evolves in response .
Hopefully we 'll all develop a thicker skin and learn to be more forgiving of all sorts of errors .
That would be a good solution , and would actually make the world a better place than it used to be .
Another possibility is that the next generation is going to grow up almost universally traumatized and defensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe instead stop being so bloody touchy about stupid things stupid people write?
What is it we've told our children for ages - "stop caring, don't give it attention"?That's a nice theory, but it's a really hard thing for people, especially immature people, to do.
Teenagers in particular are extremely sensitive to criticism, and often respond poorly.
Spend some time watching the interactions of a group of, say, 14 year-old girls on Facebook.
Vicious doesn't begin to describe it.
People in general are willing to say things behind the shield of their computer that they would never say face to face.
Add to that some low self-esteem and peer approval dependency and you have a recipe for a whole lot of heartache.
Kids have always been mean to one another, and always will, but online interaction raises it to a new level.
Kids in college are a little more mature and self-confident, but only a little.
And there's a lot of variability, so you can expect these online fora to be filled with the spew of the least mature, the least secure and the most vicious.
It will indeed be interesting to see how society evolves in response.
Hopefully we'll all develop a thicker skin and learn to be more forgiving of all sorts of errors.
That would be a good solution, and would actually make the world a better place than it used to be.
Another possibility is that the next generation is going to grow up almost universally traumatized and defensive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30259206</id>
	<title>Re:So, it's...</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1259431320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Check <a href="http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/may/03touch.htm" title="rediff.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/may/03touch.htm</a> [rediff.com] They are the best in spreading <i>venom</i> in the society.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Check http : //www.rediff.com/news/2007/may/03touch.htm [ rediff.com ] They are the best in spreading venom in the society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/may/03touch.htm [rediff.com] They are the best in spreading venom in the society.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254646</id>
	<title>Lawsuit waiting to happen?</title>
	<author>Captain Vittles</author>
	<datestamp>1259425260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Won't this problem be solved by an inevitable lawsuit? I'm hardly a lawyer, but this kind of thing sounds like libel to me. Even if the victim can't find out the identity of the bully, can't they at least go after the people who provided the public forum for the bullying? I'm not just asking rhetorically; I'm genuinely interested in an answer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wo n't this problem be solved by an inevitable lawsuit ?
I 'm hardly a lawyer , but this kind of thing sounds like libel to me .
Even if the victim ca n't find out the identity of the bully , ca n't they at least go after the people who provided the public forum for the bullying ?
I 'm not just asking rhetorically ; I 'm genuinely interested in an answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Won't this problem be solved by an inevitable lawsuit?
I'm hardly a lawyer, but this kind of thing sounds like libel to me.
Even if the victim can't find out the identity of the bully, can't they at least go after the people who provided the public forum for the bullying?
I'm not just asking rhetorically; I'm genuinely interested in an answer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30257694</id>
	<title>Re:So, it's...</title>
	<author>tonycheese</author>
	<datestamp>1259414160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I'm glad the moderators jumped on the opportunity to spring on one single school, but if you actually LOOK at the site listed (which I've never heard of as a college student), the top schools seem to have pretty much no activity or activity from random people from others schools coming over and posting (about how uppity Harvard, etc. is). Seeing as it's completely anonymous... it's impossible to tell, but it looks like people from these schools have better things to do than look up stupid sites and post on them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I 'm glad the moderators jumped on the opportunity to spring on one single school , but if you actually LOOK at the site listed ( which I 've never heard of as a college student ) , the top schools seem to have pretty much no activity or activity from random people from others schools coming over and posting ( about how uppity Harvard , etc .
is ) . Seeing as it 's completely anonymous... it 's impossible to tell , but it looks like people from these schools have better things to do than look up stupid sites and post on them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I'm glad the moderators jumped on the opportunity to spring on one single school, but if you actually LOOK at the site listed (which I've never heard of as a college student), the top schools seem to have pretty much no activity or activity from random people from others schools coming over and posting (about how uppity Harvard, etc.
is). Seeing as it's completely anonymous... it's impossible to tell, but it looks like people from these schools have better things to do than look up stupid sites and post on them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256506</id>
	<title>Re:Real reason for their objection?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259400480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it makes the university look bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it makes the university look bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it makes the university look bad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255152</id>
	<title>When I read the title..</title>
	<author>ModernGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1259430420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I read the title, I envisioned an actual whiteboard on the wall of a bathroom stall that allowed people to write on it.  I figured the problems were people using real sharpies on it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I read the title , I envisioned an actual whiteboard on the wall of a bathroom stall that allowed people to write on it .
I figured the problems were people using real sharpies on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I read the title, I envisioned an actual whiteboard on the wall of a bathroom stall that allowed people to write on it.
I figured the problems were people using real sharpies on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254480</id>
	<title>So, it's...</title>
	<author>Voulnet</author>
	<datestamp>1259423160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>4chan for Harvard?</htmltext>
<tokenext>4chan for Harvard ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4chan for Harvard?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256496</id>
	<title>Re:futile struggle</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1259400360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this mean you'd have no problem if someone was writing anonymously about you being a child molester, and a potential employer found that when googling you, and that was the deciding factor in you not getting the job?</p><p>We aren't talking about free speech here. We are talking about slander/libel. Just because the internet makes it easier doesn't mean we should just give up and say "what the hell--slander and libel are OK now".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean you 'd have no problem if someone was writing anonymously about you being a child molester , and a potential employer found that when googling you , and that was the deciding factor in you not getting the job ? We are n't talking about free speech here .
We are talking about slander/libel .
Just because the internet makes it easier does n't mean we should just give up and say " what the hell--slander and libel are OK now " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean you'd have no problem if someone was writing anonymously about you being a child molester, and a potential employer found that when googling you, and that was the deciding factor in you not getting the job?We aren't talking about free speech here.
We are talking about slander/libel.
Just because the internet makes it easier doesn't mean we should just give up and say "what the hell--slander and libel are OK now".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255306</id>
	<title>Re:futile struggle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259431980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Another possibility is that the next generation is going to grow up almost universally traumatized and defensive.</p></div><p>I sure hope so! Then those with any degree of emotional fortitude will have all the greater advantage because of their willingness to take more social "risks". Success and greatness will come to those who risk, even more so than before because of all the opportunities <i>not</i> being taken advantage of by the cowards. A greater separation (in terms of control of the direction of energy of society) will develop between those who face life boldly and those who whimper at a cross glance, and greater advancements will be made, especially in the sciences - where boldness has driven the greatest discoveries for hundreds of years.<br> <br>Without this kind of strength of character, and thick skin, would Michelson and Morley have rigorously repeated their experiments despite the criticism and ridicule they received in fighting the establishment when it came to the existence of aether? Would Einstein have faced the criticism/ridicule of most of academia by trying to destroy the absolute space of Newton (if you think Einstein was immediately acclaimed/well-received you need to brush up on your history)? Galileo? Copernicus? The scientists who make the greatest discoveries are often doing so in the face of the established academic thought. It takes a thick skin to be able to live this kind of life, and not be intimidated by thousands of your peers criticizing and mocking (scientists can be mean too) you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another possibility is that the next generation is going to grow up almost universally traumatized and defensive.I sure hope so !
Then those with any degree of emotional fortitude will have all the greater advantage because of their willingness to take more social " risks " .
Success and greatness will come to those who risk , even more so than before because of all the opportunities not being taken advantage of by the cowards .
A greater separation ( in terms of control of the direction of energy of society ) will develop between those who face life boldly and those who whimper at a cross glance , and greater advancements will be made , especially in the sciences - where boldness has driven the greatest discoveries for hundreds of years .
Without this kind of strength of character , and thick skin , would Michelson and Morley have rigorously repeated their experiments despite the criticism and ridicule they received in fighting the establishment when it came to the existence of aether ?
Would Einstein have faced the criticism/ridicule of most of academia by trying to destroy the absolute space of Newton ( if you think Einstein was immediately acclaimed/well-received you need to brush up on your history ) ?
Galileo ? Copernicus ?
The scientists who make the greatest discoveries are often doing so in the face of the established academic thought .
It takes a thick skin to be able to live this kind of life , and not be intimidated by thousands of your peers criticizing and mocking ( scientists can be mean too ) you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another possibility is that the next generation is going to grow up almost universally traumatized and defensive.I sure hope so!
Then those with any degree of emotional fortitude will have all the greater advantage because of their willingness to take more social "risks".
Success and greatness will come to those who risk, even more so than before because of all the opportunities not being taken advantage of by the cowards.
A greater separation (in terms of control of the direction of energy of society) will develop between those who face life boldly and those who whimper at a cross glance, and greater advancements will be made, especially in the sciences - where boldness has driven the greatest discoveries for hundreds of years.
Without this kind of strength of character, and thick skin, would Michelson and Morley have rigorously repeated their experiments despite the criticism and ridicule they received in fighting the establishment when it came to the existence of aether?
Would Einstein have faced the criticism/ridicule of most of academia by trying to destroy the absolute space of Newton (if you think Einstein was immediately acclaimed/well-received you need to brush up on your history)?
Galileo? Copernicus?
The scientists who make the greatest discoveries are often doing so in the face of the established academic thought.
It takes a thick skin to be able to live this kind of life, and not be intimidated by thousands of your peers criticizing and mocking (scientists can be mean too) you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255228</id>
	<title>Re:So, it's...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259431020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. It's the Valley of the Squinting Windows. Technology has brought us right back to the ignorant, vindictive and intolerant society we started out from. The more things change....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
It 's the Valley of the Squinting Windows .
Technology has brought us right back to the ignorant , vindictive and intolerant society we started out from .
The more things change... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
It's the Valley of the Squinting Windows.
Technology has brought us right back to the ignorant, vindictive and intolerant society we started out from.
The more things change....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256612</id>
	<title>Re:futile struggle</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1259401380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sheen, have you ever been in a Turkish Prison?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sheen , have you ever been in a Turkish Prison ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sheen, have you ever been in a Turkish Prison?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255296</id>
	<title>Re:PC, huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259431860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You sound like a fattie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You sound like a fattie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sound like a fattie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30266742</id>
	<title>Re:futile struggle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259517420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People in general are willing to say things behind the shield of their computer that they would never say face to face.</p></div><p>Usually because they have come to realize that people who can't defend themselves verbally will, when confronted face to face, generally just kick your teeth out of your skull.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Add to that some low self-esteem and peer approval dependency and you have a recipe for a whole lot of heartache. Kids have always been mean to one another, and always will, but online interaction raises it to a new level</p></div><p>No, it does not raise it to any new level. What it does is makes it so that the weak kids are on the same level as the strong ones. Or as is usually the case, the weak kids are actually at an advantage over the strong bullies when resorting to verbal attacks. I hear a lot of this "Oh, my poor kid was bullied on the internet" but fail to mention that their kid is the one that has been physically abusing the other kids at school &amp; this is the only way they can get back at him or her.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It will indeed be interesting to see how society evolves in response.</p></div><p>There isn't going to be any evolution. This has existed for years- plenty of people have written stuff in the bathrooms about other kids. Notes have been passed saying hateful things. This is just a different medium.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Another possibility is that the next generation is going to grow up almost universally traumatized and defensive.</p></div><p>Unlikely. Unless you mean the next generation of elitist jock-types. In which case it would probably be a good thing. Parents and teachers overlook physical attacks and write if off as kids just "being kids". But when the star quarterback of the football team can't reach out and literally choke the nerd who is talking trash about him, all of a sudden the world is coming to an end! The Natural order has been overturned and we must stop it!</p><p>I hear a lot of pigshit about how "emotionally traumatizing" online comments are. Well guess what, they aren't nearly as traumatizing as the ones said to your face, verbally, with a crowd of onlookers preventing you from leaving, demanding a response, and when you give one, you get to have your face literally smashed into the ground while the larger, stronger kid taunts you with even more verbal abuse.<br>You can walk away from a chat room and there's no shame, nobody to see you retreat... and on the internet even the smallest, weakest, frailest child can be the strong one. But apparently people have issues with that, they would prefer the abuse remain physical, so that those with more advanced literary skills can be put in their proper place- the full Nelson.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People in general are willing to say things behind the shield of their computer that they would never say face to face.Usually because they have come to realize that people who ca n't defend themselves verbally will , when confronted face to face , generally just kick your teeth out of your skull.Add to that some low self-esteem and peer approval dependency and you have a recipe for a whole lot of heartache .
Kids have always been mean to one another , and always will , but online interaction raises it to a new levelNo , it does not raise it to any new level .
What it does is makes it so that the weak kids are on the same level as the strong ones .
Or as is usually the case , the weak kids are actually at an advantage over the strong bullies when resorting to verbal attacks .
I hear a lot of this " Oh , my poor kid was bullied on the internet " but fail to mention that their kid is the one that has been physically abusing the other kids at school &amp; this is the only way they can get back at him or her.It will indeed be interesting to see how society evolves in response.There is n't going to be any evolution .
This has existed for years- plenty of people have written stuff in the bathrooms about other kids .
Notes have been passed saying hateful things .
This is just a different medium.Another possibility is that the next generation is going to grow up almost universally traumatized and defensive.Unlikely .
Unless you mean the next generation of elitist jock-types .
In which case it would probably be a good thing .
Parents and teachers overlook physical attacks and write if off as kids just " being kids " .
But when the star quarterback of the football team ca n't reach out and literally choke the nerd who is talking trash about him , all of a sudden the world is coming to an end !
The Natural order has been overturned and we must stop it ! I hear a lot of pigshit about how " emotionally traumatizing " online comments are .
Well guess what , they are n't nearly as traumatizing as the ones said to your face , verbally , with a crowd of onlookers preventing you from leaving , demanding a response , and when you give one , you get to have your face literally smashed into the ground while the larger , stronger kid taunts you with even more verbal abuse.You can walk away from a chat room and there 's no shame , nobody to see you retreat... and on the internet even the smallest , weakest , frailest child can be the strong one .
But apparently people have issues with that , they would prefer the abuse remain physical , so that those with more advanced literary skills can be put in their proper place- the full Nelson .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People in general are willing to say things behind the shield of their computer that they would never say face to face.Usually because they have come to realize that people who can't defend themselves verbally will, when confronted face to face, generally just kick your teeth out of your skull.Add to that some low self-esteem and peer approval dependency and you have a recipe for a whole lot of heartache.
Kids have always been mean to one another, and always will, but online interaction raises it to a new levelNo, it does not raise it to any new level.
What it does is makes it so that the weak kids are on the same level as the strong ones.
Or as is usually the case, the weak kids are actually at an advantage over the strong bullies when resorting to verbal attacks.
I hear a lot of this "Oh, my poor kid was bullied on the internet" but fail to mention that their kid is the one that has been physically abusing the other kids at school &amp; this is the only way they can get back at him or her.It will indeed be interesting to see how society evolves in response.There isn't going to be any evolution.
This has existed for years- plenty of people have written stuff in the bathrooms about other kids.
Notes have been passed saying hateful things.
This is just a different medium.Another possibility is that the next generation is going to grow up almost universally traumatized and defensive.Unlikely.
Unless you mean the next generation of elitist jock-types.
In which case it would probably be a good thing.
Parents and teachers overlook physical attacks and write if off as kids just "being kids".
But when the star quarterback of the football team can't reach out and literally choke the nerd who is talking trash about him, all of a sudden the world is coming to an end!
The Natural order has been overturned and we must stop it!I hear a lot of pigshit about how "emotionally traumatizing" online comments are.
Well guess what, they aren't nearly as traumatizing as the ones said to your face, verbally, with a crowd of onlookers preventing you from leaving, demanding a response, and when you give one, you get to have your face literally smashed into the ground while the larger, stronger kid taunts you with even more verbal abuse.You can walk away from a chat room and there's no shame, nobody to see you retreat... and on the internet even the smallest, weakest, frailest child can be the strong one.
But apparently people have issues with that, they would prefer the abuse remain physical, so that those with more advanced literary skills can be put in their proper place- the full Nelson.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254918</id>
	<title>Dilemma</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259428080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a dilemma inherent in our choices of technologies.</p><p>If we allow anonymity, people will
<br>(a) Use it for good: whistleblowing on evildoers;
<br>(b) Use it for evil: anonymously libelling the innocent;
</p><p>If we prohibit anonymity, people will
<br>(a) Use it for good: standing by their assertions;
<br>(b) Use it for evil: track every word you say, stifling whistleblowers and witnesses.</p><p>There is no right answer.  There are only choices between problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a dilemma inherent in our choices of technologies.If we allow anonymity , people will ( a ) Use it for good : whistleblowing on evildoers ; ( b ) Use it for evil : anonymously libelling the innocent ; If we prohibit anonymity , people will ( a ) Use it for good : standing by their assertions ; ( b ) Use it for evil : track every word you say , stifling whistleblowers and witnesses.There is no right answer .
There are only choices between problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a dilemma inherent in our choices of technologies.If we allow anonymity, people will
(a) Use it for good: whistleblowing on evildoers;
(b) Use it for evil: anonymously libelling the innocent;
If we prohibit anonymity, people will
(a) Use it for good: standing by their assertions;
(b) Use it for evil: track every word you say, stifling whistleblowers and witnesses.There is no right answer.
There are only choices between problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254844</id>
	<title>related study</title>
	<author>ascari</author>
	<datestamp>1259427360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A related study has revealed that the most common phrase scribbled on the digital bathroom wall is "For a good time call NTP". Close runners up were enumerations of operating systems that blow, comments on head and tail etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A related study has revealed that the most common phrase scribbled on the digital bathroom wall is " For a good time call NTP " .
Close runners up were enumerations of operating systems that blow , comments on head and tail etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A related study has revealed that the most common phrase scribbled on the digital bathroom wall is "For a good time call NTP".
Close runners up were enumerations of operating systems that blow, comments on head and tail etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30261042</id>
	<title>Re:futile struggle</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1259506740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a little while since I was 14, but I remember the girls of my age being incredibly viscous, with hair-pulling and attacking with sharp teeth and nails being a common way of interacting within the group.  If they're now insulting each other over the Internet, then it sounds quite tame by comparison.  Of course, when they were near any of their parents, they were always sweet, charming and polite.  As the other poster said: putting things online just makes them more visible to adults.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a little while since I was 14 , but I remember the girls of my age being incredibly viscous , with hair-pulling and attacking with sharp teeth and nails being a common way of interacting within the group .
If they 're now insulting each other over the Internet , then it sounds quite tame by comparison .
Of course , when they were near any of their parents , they were always sweet , charming and polite .
As the other poster said : putting things online just makes them more visible to adults .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a little while since I was 14, but I remember the girls of my age being incredibly viscous, with hair-pulling and attacking with sharp teeth and nails being a common way of interacting within the group.
If they're now insulting each other over the Internet, then it sounds quite tame by comparison.
Of course, when they were near any of their parents, they were always sweet, charming and polite.
As the other poster said: putting things online just makes them more visible to adults.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30257750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255016</id>
	<title>Re:PC, huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259429160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>No,PC was just the latest incarnation of the golden rule.  Do unto others as you would have then do unto you, and all that socialist new age radical thinking.
<p>
Some might think fag, feminazi, devil worshipper, traitor, and all those names are all in fun, but ask yourself if you like to be called names. Even Rush,that bastion of free speech, has gotten to the point where he can no longer has the <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,566983,00.html" title="foxnews.com">courage to stay in the kitchen</a> [foxnews.com].  Some of y'all may say that the truth matters, but really, what is the slogan, we report, you decide?
</p><p>
In any case,insulting professors and teachers is not a huge thing.  It is really a response to the perceived powerlessness that the adolescent, and too many adults, feel in response to an authority figure.  It is the only way that these people know to react. They do not yet have the maturity, or intellegence, to know how the world works. For instance in High School and college they are rules, and one can do well by following the rules and learning.  Yet most in high school, and too many in college, still see grades as arbitrarily given by the authority figures.  This then leads to comments made our anger and ignorance.
</p><p>
College is supposed to help people move beyond such lack of control.  Understand that by planning and research on can have some control. That one does not have to react,but can in fact somewhat deterministically act to maximize one's own position, instead of always maximizing other's position.  One expects maturity to help everyone else.  Unfortunately, college, maturity,even the holy scripture, cannot stop the name calling that has seems to characterize certain parts of our media.
</p><p>
Call it PC or whatever. It is simply matter of proper social behavior. Some people got it. Others don't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No,PC was just the latest incarnation of the golden rule .
Do unto others as you would have then do unto you , and all that socialist new age radical thinking .
Some might think fag , feminazi , devil worshipper , traitor , and all those names are all in fun , but ask yourself if you like to be called names .
Even Rush,that bastion of free speech , has gotten to the point where he can no longer has the courage to stay in the kitchen [ foxnews.com ] .
Some of y'all may say that the truth matters , but really , what is the slogan , we report , you decide ?
In any case,insulting professors and teachers is not a huge thing .
It is really a response to the perceived powerlessness that the adolescent , and too many adults , feel in response to an authority figure .
It is the only way that these people know to react .
They do not yet have the maturity , or intellegence , to know how the world works .
For instance in High School and college they are rules , and one can do well by following the rules and learning .
Yet most in high school , and too many in college , still see grades as arbitrarily given by the authority figures .
This then leads to comments made our anger and ignorance .
College is supposed to help people move beyond such lack of control .
Understand that by planning and research on can have some control .
That one does not have to react,but can in fact somewhat deterministically act to maximize one 's own position , instead of always maximizing other 's position .
One expects maturity to help everyone else .
Unfortunately , college , maturity,even the holy scripture , can not stop the name calling that has seems to characterize certain parts of our media .
Call it PC or whatever .
It is simply matter of proper social behavior .
Some people got it .
Others do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No,PC was just the latest incarnation of the golden rule.
Do unto others as you would have then do unto you, and all that socialist new age radical thinking.
Some might think fag, feminazi, devil worshipper, traitor, and all those names are all in fun, but ask yourself if you like to be called names.
Even Rush,that bastion of free speech, has gotten to the point where he can no longer has the courage to stay in the kitchen [foxnews.com].
Some of y'all may say that the truth matters, but really, what is the slogan, we report, you decide?
In any case,insulting professors and teachers is not a huge thing.
It is really a response to the perceived powerlessness that the adolescent, and too many adults, feel in response to an authority figure.
It is the only way that these people know to react.
They do not yet have the maturity, or intellegence, to know how the world works.
For instance in High School and college they are rules, and one can do well by following the rules and learning.
Yet most in high school, and too many in college, still see grades as arbitrarily given by the authority figures.
This then leads to comments made our anger and ignorance.
College is supposed to help people move beyond such lack of control.
Understand that by planning and research on can have some control.
That one does not have to react,but can in fact somewhat deterministically act to maximize one's own position, instead of always maximizing other's position.
One expects maturity to help everyone else.
Unfortunately, college, maturity,even the holy scripture, cannot stop the name calling that has seems to characterize certain parts of our media.
Call it PC or whatever.
It is simply matter of proper social behavior.
Some people got it.
Others don't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254756</id>
	<title>Re:futile struggle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259426340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're ignoring the vandalism aspect: Anyone who scribbles on the digital bathroom wall deserves a digital swirly!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're ignoring the vandalism aspect : Anyone who scribbles on the digital bathroom wall deserves a digital swirly !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're ignoring the vandalism aspect: Anyone who scribbles on the digital bathroom wall deserves a digital swirly!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255150</id>
	<title>First option is best</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259430420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first one is obviously the best choice.  I'd much rather have to deal with being slandered than have whistleblowers stifled.  Hell, you get used to being slandered way early on in life, that's practically what elementary and high school are anyway.  It's just now the teachers are taking exception to when it's done to them and not the kids.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first one is obviously the best choice .
I 'd much rather have to deal with being slandered than have whistleblowers stifled .
Hell , you get used to being slandered way early on in life , that 's practically what elementary and high school are anyway .
It 's just now the teachers are taking exception to when it 's done to them and not the kids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first one is obviously the best choice.
I'd much rather have to deal with being slandered than have whistleblowers stifled.
Hell, you get used to being slandered way early on in life, that's practically what elementary and high school are anyway.
It's just now the teachers are taking exception to when it's done to them and not the kids.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255698</id>
	<title>Re:Dilemma</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259436000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If we allow anonymity, people will</p><p>(a) Use it for good: whistleblowing on evildoers;</p><p><b>(b) Use it for evil: anonymously libelling the innocent;</b></p></div><p>Because of course, everyone takes anonymous garbage seriously.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If we allow anonymity , people will ( a ) Use it for good : whistleblowing on evildoers ; ( b ) Use it for evil : anonymously libelling the innocent ; Because of course , everyone takes anonymous garbage seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we allow anonymity, people will(a) Use it for good: whistleblowing on evildoers;(b) Use it for evil: anonymously libelling the innocent;Because of course, everyone takes anonymous garbage seriously.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255804</id>
	<title>Re:PC, huh?</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1259437080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Political Correctness is just a new version of Politeness."</p><p>Horse Shit.</p><p>Polite society has observed pretty much the same conventions for centuries now.  Politeness hasn't changed much at all.  Change is slow, and very gradual.</p><p>Politically correct is a fucking bludgeon used mostly by the left to beat down anyone who disagrees with their point of view.</p><p>Need an example?  A polite person won't call a queer a queer - he will avoid the subject, or use less inflammatory terms.  But, a polite person will STILL vote his conscience, and when the subject of homosexuality comes up, he will voice his opposition to it.</p><p>"Politically correct" bullshit makes it a crime for anyone to speak out against queer sumbitches who want to get married, and take over the churches, schools, military, or whatever else offends them.  Opposition to homosexuality becomes a "hate crime".</p><p>Don't ever confuse "polite" and "politically correct".</p><p>Polite pretends that the queer isn't a cocksucker.  Politically correct demands approval of cocksuckers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Political Correctness is just a new version of Politeness .
" Horse Shit.Polite society has observed pretty much the same conventions for centuries now .
Politeness has n't changed much at all .
Change is slow , and very gradual.Politically correct is a fucking bludgeon used mostly by the left to beat down anyone who disagrees with their point of view.Need an example ?
A polite person wo n't call a queer a queer - he will avoid the subject , or use less inflammatory terms .
But , a polite person will STILL vote his conscience , and when the subject of homosexuality comes up , he will voice his opposition to it .
" Politically correct " bullshit makes it a crime for anyone to speak out against queer sumbitches who want to get married , and take over the churches , schools , military , or whatever else offends them .
Opposition to homosexuality becomes a " hate crime " .Do n't ever confuse " polite " and " politically correct " .Polite pretends that the queer is n't a cocksucker .
Politically correct demands approval of cocksuckers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Political Correctness is just a new version of Politeness.
"Horse Shit.Polite society has observed pretty much the same conventions for centuries now.
Politeness hasn't changed much at all.
Change is slow, and very gradual.Politically correct is a fucking bludgeon used mostly by the left to beat down anyone who disagrees with their point of view.Need an example?
A polite person won't call a queer a queer - he will avoid the subject, or use less inflammatory terms.
But, a polite person will STILL vote his conscience, and when the subject of homosexuality comes up, he will voice his opposition to it.
"Politically correct" bullshit makes it a crime for anyone to speak out against queer sumbitches who want to get married, and take over the churches, schools, military, or whatever else offends them.
Opposition to homosexuality becomes a "hate crime".Don't ever confuse "polite" and "politically correct".Polite pretends that the queer isn't a cocksucker.
Politically correct demands approval of cocksuckers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254546</id>
	<title>Re:PC, huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259423940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The name "political correctness" implies the two bad attributes of the phenomenon: That it's political and that it claims to be correct (without justification and in a field with many differing perspectives). Politeness often also has these attributes, but the realization that a new behavior is in some way similar to an old behavior which one didn't question should not compel anyone to agree with the new behavior in spite of better knowledge. PC is a limitation on discussion and therefore a limitation on thinking, which is unacceptable. So fuck you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The name " political correctness " implies the two bad attributes of the phenomenon : That it 's political and that it claims to be correct ( without justification and in a field with many differing perspectives ) .
Politeness often also has these attributes , but the realization that a new behavior is in some way similar to an old behavior which one did n't question should not compel anyone to agree with the new behavior in spite of better knowledge .
PC is a limitation on discussion and therefore a limitation on thinking , which is unacceptable .
So fuck you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The name "political correctness" implies the two bad attributes of the phenomenon: That it's political and that it claims to be correct (without justification and in a field with many differing perspectives).
Politeness often also has these attributes, but the realization that a new behavior is in some way similar to an old behavior which one didn't question should not compel anyone to agree with the new behavior in spite of better knowledge.
PC is a limitation on discussion and therefore a limitation on thinking, which is unacceptable.
So fuck you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30257202</id>
	<title>Re:So, it's...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259408880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This "society" you speak of is a thin veneer over the Law of the Jungle.<br>The difference now is that you pilfer someone's retirement fund instead of clubbing him over the head and taking the gazelle he just killed --- the result is the same, no meat on the table.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This " society " you speak of is a thin veneer over the Law of the Jungle.The difference now is that you pilfer someone 's retirement fund instead of clubbing him over the head and taking the gazelle he just killed --- the result is the same , no meat on the table .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This "society" you speak of is a thin veneer over the Law of the Jungle.The difference now is that you pilfer someone's retirement fund instead of clubbing him over the head and taking the gazelle he just killed --- the result is the same, no meat on the table.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254732</id>
	<title>Though fucking noogies.</title>
	<author>Pig Hogger</author>
	<datestamp>1259426160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>Freedom of speech wears-out only if you don&rsquo;t use it. </em> </p><p>&mdash; Maurice Mar&eacute;chal, founder of the satirical french weekly &ldquo;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le\_Canard\_Enchain&eacute;" title="wikipedia.org">Le Canard Encha&icirc;n&eacute;</a> [wikipedia.org]&ldquo;.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Freedom of speech wears-out only if you don    t use it .
   Maurice Mar   chal , founder of the satirical french weekly    Le Canard Encha   n   [ wikipedia.org ]    .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Freedom of speech wears-out only if you don’t use it.
— Maurice Maréchal, founder of the satirical french weekly “Le Canard Enchaîné [wikipedia.org]“.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30259708</id>
	<title>Re:PC, huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259526540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The obvious intent of PC is to stop people using words that are associated with negative stereotypes. The problem with the logic behind it is that the stereotypes come from the things, not the words, so no matter what you change the word to, the stereotype will return unless the underlying thing changes.</p><p>An obvious example would be someone in a wheelchair. You can call them crippled, handicapped, disabled, differently-abled or whatever, but the name isn't going to change the fact that seeing the person will make some people uncomfortable, because they can't help but imagine how they would feel if they were confined to a wheelchair.</p><p>I think the people who started PC may have been ignorant and naive enough to believe that negative attitudes towards certain people and groups stemmed from words, which in turn had negative associations because of historical oppression. If the futility of the PC treadmill hasn't convinced them that this idea is nonsense, then I'm afraid nothing will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The obvious intent of PC is to stop people using words that are associated with negative stereotypes .
The problem with the logic behind it is that the stereotypes come from the things , not the words , so no matter what you change the word to , the stereotype will return unless the underlying thing changes.An obvious example would be someone in a wheelchair .
You can call them crippled , handicapped , disabled , differently-abled or whatever , but the name is n't going to change the fact that seeing the person will make some people uncomfortable , because they ca n't help but imagine how they would feel if they were confined to a wheelchair.I think the people who started PC may have been ignorant and naive enough to believe that negative attitudes towards certain people and groups stemmed from words , which in turn had negative associations because of historical oppression .
If the futility of the PC treadmill has n't convinced them that this idea is nonsense , then I 'm afraid nothing will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The obvious intent of PC is to stop people using words that are associated with negative stereotypes.
The problem with the logic behind it is that the stereotypes come from the things, not the words, so no matter what you change the word to, the stereotype will return unless the underlying thing changes.An obvious example would be someone in a wheelchair.
You can call them crippled, handicapped, disabled, differently-abled or whatever, but the name isn't going to change the fact that seeing the person will make some people uncomfortable, because they can't help but imagine how they would feel if they were confined to a wheelchair.I think the people who started PC may have been ignorant and naive enough to believe that negative attitudes towards certain people and groups stemmed from words, which in turn had negative associations because of historical oppression.
If the futility of the PC treadmill hasn't convinced them that this idea is nonsense, then I'm afraid nothing will.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254568</id>
	<title>Kids are bastards</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1259424180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just give them the cane some more until morale improves!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just give them the cane some more until morale improves !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just give them the cane some more until morale improves!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256560</id>
	<title>Re:PC, huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259400960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The name "political correctness" implies the two bad attributes of the phenomenon: That it's political and that it claims to be correct (without justification and in a field with many differing perspectives). Politeness often also has these attributes, but the realization that a new behavior is in some way similar to an old behavior which one didn't question should not compel anyone to agree with the new behavior in spite of better knowledge. PC is a limitation on discussion and therefore a limitation on thinking, which is unacceptable. So fuck you.</p></div><p>I've always interpreted political correctness as the right to steal money, sleep around, squash worthwhile legislation because of minor quibbles, a general lack of the "big picture" and a sense of entitlement and respect that results in appearing like a complete and total douche wibbler.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The name " political correctness " implies the two bad attributes of the phenomenon : That it 's political and that it claims to be correct ( without justification and in a field with many differing perspectives ) .
Politeness often also has these attributes , but the realization that a new behavior is in some way similar to an old behavior which one did n't question should not compel anyone to agree with the new behavior in spite of better knowledge .
PC is a limitation on discussion and therefore a limitation on thinking , which is unacceptable .
So fuck you.I 've always interpreted political correctness as the right to steal money , sleep around , squash worthwhile legislation because of minor quibbles , a general lack of the " big picture " and a sense of entitlement and respect that results in appearing like a complete and total douche wibbler .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The name "political correctness" implies the two bad attributes of the phenomenon: That it's political and that it claims to be correct (without justification and in a field with many differing perspectives).
Politeness often also has these attributes, but the realization that a new behavior is in some way similar to an old behavior which one didn't question should not compel anyone to agree with the new behavior in spite of better knowledge.
PC is a limitation on discussion and therefore a limitation on thinking, which is unacceptable.
So fuck you.I've always interpreted political correctness as the right to steal money, sleep around, squash worthwhile legislation because of minor quibbles, a general lack of the "big picture" and a sense of entitlement and respect that results in appearing like a complete and total douche wibbler.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254498</id>
	<title>PC, huh?</title>
	<author>FatSean</author>
	<datestamp>1259423460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Political Correctness is just a new version of Politeness.  Those who make sad and angry noises about PC are just upset that their version of PC is out of style.  Perhaps they were Emily Post fans.</p><p>We now frown on slurs and other degrading language where once that was celebrated.  We now allow discussions of topics in public that were once forced by the Olde PC to be kept private to the determent of those who needed the topics aired.</p><p>When someone complains about 'PC' they're just complaining that THEIR version of right/wrong in public has been pushed out by the majority.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Political Correctness is just a new version of Politeness .
Those who make sad and angry noises about PC are just upset that their version of PC is out of style .
Perhaps they were Emily Post fans.We now frown on slurs and other degrading language where once that was celebrated .
We now allow discussions of topics in public that were once forced by the Olde PC to be kept private to the determent of those who needed the topics aired.When someone complains about 'PC ' they 're just complaining that THEIR version of right/wrong in public has been pushed out by the majority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Political Correctness is just a new version of Politeness.
Those who make sad and angry noises about PC are just upset that their version of PC is out of style.
Perhaps they were Emily Post fans.We now frown on slurs and other degrading language where once that was celebrated.
We now allow discussions of topics in public that were once forced by the Olde PC to be kept private to the determent of those who needed the topics aired.When someone complains about 'PC' they're just complaining that THEIR version of right/wrong in public has been pushed out by the majority.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254886</id>
	<title>Re:PC, huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259427780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree. While I think <i>some</i> political correctness is over the top, it seems that its intent is to prevent people who don't think, or who refuse to think, from hijacking communication with simple stereotypes. Simply relating PC to a means of prohibition is failing to acknowledge that what people say is largely dependent on their level of awareness, and can range anywhere from the truly insightful, to the frightfully ignorant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree .
While I think some political correctness is over the top , it seems that its intent is to prevent people who do n't think , or who refuse to think , from hijacking communication with simple stereotypes .
Simply relating PC to a means of prohibition is failing to acknowledge that what people say is largely dependent on their level of awareness , and can range anywhere from the truly insightful , to the frightfully ignorant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree.
While I think some political correctness is over the top, it seems that its intent is to prevent people who don't think, or who refuse to think, from hijacking communication with simple stereotypes.
Simply relating PC to a means of prohibition is failing to acknowledge that what people say is largely dependent on their level of awareness, and can range anywhere from the truly insightful, to the frightfully ignorant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256654</id>
	<title>Re:PC, huh?</title>
	<author>WCguru42</author>
	<datestamp>1259401740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When you get white Americans calling European nationals who happen to be black 'African Americans' it's gone too far.</p></div><p>I remember someone telling me that Resident Evil 5 was racist towards african americans.  I told them that the game wasn't racist, but if it were it would have to be towards africans that were specifically not american.  The look on the guys face made it seem like he wanted to know more about this mythical africa.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you get white Americans calling European nationals who happen to be black 'African Americans ' it 's gone too far.I remember someone telling me that Resident Evil 5 was racist towards african americans .
I told them that the game was n't racist , but if it were it would have to be towards africans that were specifically not american .
The look on the guys face made it seem like he wanted to know more about this mythical africa .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you get white Americans calling European nationals who happen to be black 'African Americans' it's gone too far.I remember someone telling me that Resident Evil 5 was racist towards african americans.
I told them that the game wasn't racist, but if it were it would have to be towards africans that were specifically not american.
The look on the guys face made it seem like he wanted to know more about this mythical africa.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254666</id>
	<title>Juicy is gone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259425440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hmmm juicy campus ran out of money and shut down so why the big push to discuss this now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hmmm juicy campus ran out of money and shut down so why the big push to discuss this now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hmmm juicy campus ran out of money and shut down so why the big push to discuss this now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256690</id>
	<title>Re:PC, huh?</title>
	<author>WCguru42</author>
	<datestamp>1259402160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In short, the english language does not have a simple structure for dealing with gender-neutrality.  If you look to Latin based languages you will see that they have masculine, feminine and neuter forms of speech.  I don't know enough about other languages to speak to whether or not they have similar constructions but english does not.  And for that reason, trying to make everything into a genderless pursuit is futile.  I like to do the old switch between his/her because it riles up people who tell me it's still sexist, to which I reply, I don't give a rat's ass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In short , the english language does not have a simple structure for dealing with gender-neutrality .
If you look to Latin based languages you will see that they have masculine , feminine and neuter forms of speech .
I do n't know enough about other languages to speak to whether or not they have similar constructions but english does not .
And for that reason , trying to make everything into a genderless pursuit is futile .
I like to do the old switch between his/her because it riles up people who tell me it 's still sexist , to which I reply , I do n't give a rat 's ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In short, the english language does not have a simple structure for dealing with gender-neutrality.
If you look to Latin based languages you will see that they have masculine, feminine and neuter forms of speech.
I don't know enough about other languages to speak to whether or not they have similar constructions but english does not.
And for that reason, trying to make everything into a genderless pursuit is futile.
I like to do the old switch between his/her because it riles up people who tell me it's still sexist, to which I reply, I don't give a rat's ass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254488</id>
	<title>futile struggle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259423340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really, it's futile in the long term to try and ban "harassment comments" or whatever you want to call it, unless you want to really compromise free speech and become worse than China. Maybe instead stop being so bloody touchy about stupid things stupid people write? What is it we've told our children for ages - "stop caring, don't give it attention"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , it 's futile in the long term to try and ban " harassment comments " or whatever you want to call it , unless you want to really compromise free speech and become worse than China .
Maybe instead stop being so bloody touchy about stupid things stupid people write ?
What is it we 've told our children for ages - " stop caring , do n't give it attention " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, it's futile in the long term to try and ban "harassment comments" or whatever you want to call it, unless you want to really compromise free speech and become worse than China.
Maybe instead stop being so bloody touchy about stupid things stupid people write?
What is it we've told our children for ages - "stop caring, don't give it attention"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30258494</id>
	<title>Re:Herpes</title>
	<author>rabiddeity</author>
	<datestamp>1259423160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Soulskill has herpes!</p></div></blockquote><p>You know <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrVqD67zils" title="youtube.com">there's a treatment for that</a> [youtube.com]. But I hear it may have some side-effects.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Soulskill has herpes ! You know there 's a treatment for that [ youtube.com ] .
But I hear it may have some side-effects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Soulskill has herpes!You know there's a treatment for that [youtube.com].
But I hear it may have some side-effects.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254740</id>
	<title>Re:PC, huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259426160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Political Correctness is just a new version of Politeness</p></div><p>Political Correctness is not polite. In fact, it is the opposite. PC speak at its core is about deception, and as such is one of the greatest forms of insult to any listener that can read between the lines.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Political Correctness is just a new version of PolitenessPolitical Correctness is not polite .
In fact , it is the opposite .
PC speak at its core is about deception , and as such is one of the greatest forms of insult to any listener that can read between the lines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Political Correctness is just a new version of PolitenessPolitical Correctness is not polite.
In fact, it is the opposite.
PC speak at its core is about deception, and as such is one of the greatest forms of insult to any listener that can read between the lines.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255328</id>
	<title>Re:futile struggle</title>
	<author>Ihmhi</author>
	<datestamp>1259432280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Spend some time watching the interactions of a group of, say, 14 year-old girls on Facebook.  Vicious doesn't begin to describe it.</p></div><p>Back when I was in school, women were bitches the old-fashioned way - behind each other's backs, and occasionally in shouting matches at the park across the street from the school.</p><p>I'm 23.</p><p>These newfangled digital bitches don't hold a candle to their ancestors. Excuse the gender-specific term, but they just don't have the balls. I recall one girl talked smack about another and she got her head put into the driver's side window of a parked car. A fucking window!</p><p>I'll bet most of these girls can't throw a punch nowadays either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Spend some time watching the interactions of a group of , say , 14 year-old girls on Facebook .
Vicious does n't begin to describe it.Back when I was in school , women were bitches the old-fashioned way - behind each other 's backs , and occasionally in shouting matches at the park across the street from the school.I 'm 23.These newfangled digital bitches do n't hold a candle to their ancestors .
Excuse the gender-specific term , but they just do n't have the balls .
I recall one girl talked smack about another and she got her head put into the driver 's side window of a parked car .
A fucking window ! I 'll bet most of these girls ca n't throw a punch nowadays either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spend some time watching the interactions of a group of, say, 14 year-old girls on Facebook.
Vicious doesn't begin to describe it.Back when I was in school, women were bitches the old-fashioned way - behind each other's backs, and occasionally in shouting matches at the park across the street from the school.I'm 23.These newfangled digital bitches don't hold a candle to their ancestors.
Excuse the gender-specific term, but they just don't have the balls.
I recall one girl talked smack about another and she got her head put into the driver's side window of a parked car.
A fucking window!I'll bet most of these girls can't throw a punch nowadays either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254818</id>
	<title>Nothing has changed</title>
	<author>incongruency</author>
	<datestamp>1259427180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really, consider the fact that what is going on here is nothing more than the same gossip from before, but now in electronic format.<br> <br>People talk, people gossip, people are social creatures, and as it often appears to be, people are cruel.  Just because someone wrote a comment about you on some internet 'bathroom wall' or even a real bathroom wall doesn't mean you have to do anything about it, or even recognize it.  In both cases, the anonymity of the posting is its very downfall.  On the other hand, if you have people outright spreading gossip and clearly linking it back to themselves (the real-world equivalent of saying "yeah, I wrote that"), then the problem is more pronounced, but still the same as before.  You can deal with gossip if you know who starts it, or you can deal with gossip by ignoring it.<br> <br>If colleges can't teach to their students that gossip is best ignored, then we have more things to worry about than the gossip itself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , consider the fact that what is going on here is nothing more than the same gossip from before , but now in electronic format .
People talk , people gossip , people are social creatures , and as it often appears to be , people are cruel .
Just because someone wrote a comment about you on some internet 'bathroom wall ' or even a real bathroom wall does n't mean you have to do anything about it , or even recognize it .
In both cases , the anonymity of the posting is its very downfall .
On the other hand , if you have people outright spreading gossip and clearly linking it back to themselves ( the real-world equivalent of saying " yeah , I wrote that " ) , then the problem is more pronounced , but still the same as before .
You can deal with gossip if you know who starts it , or you can deal with gossip by ignoring it .
If colleges ca n't teach to their students that gossip is best ignored , then we have more things to worry about than the gossip itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, consider the fact that what is going on here is nothing more than the same gossip from before, but now in electronic format.
People talk, people gossip, people are social creatures, and as it often appears to be, people are cruel.
Just because someone wrote a comment about you on some internet 'bathroom wall' or even a real bathroom wall doesn't mean you have to do anything about it, or even recognize it.
In both cases, the anonymity of the posting is its very downfall.
On the other hand, if you have people outright spreading gossip and clearly linking it back to themselves (the real-world equivalent of saying "yeah, I wrote that"), then the problem is more pronounced, but still the same as before.
You can deal with gossip if you know who starts it, or you can deal with gossip by ignoring it.
If colleges can't teach to their students that gossip is best ignored, then we have more things to worry about than the gossip itself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256658</id>
	<title>Re:futile struggle</title>
	<author>baKanale</author>
	<datestamp>1259401800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If only we could mod the GP "-1 Creepy".</htmltext>
<tokenext>If only we could mod the GP " -1 Creepy " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only we could mod the GP "-1 Creepy".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255050</id>
	<title>Re:futile struggle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259429520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You spend time watching 14 year old girls, on facebook?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You spend time watching 14 year old girls , on facebook ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You spend time watching 14 year old girls, on facebook?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30257780</id>
	<title>False</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259415180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's impossible since Soulskill is still a virgin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's impossible since Soulskill is still a virgin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's impossible since Soulskill is still a virgin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254754</id>
	<title>Re:PC, huh?</title>
	<author>Vahokif</author>
	<datestamp>1259426280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The difference is that politeness is a style that evolved naturally. Political correctness is an invented newspeak.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference is that politeness is a style that evolved naturally .
Political correctness is an invented newspeak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference is that politeness is a style that evolved naturally.
Political correctness is an invented newspeak.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30262482</id>
	<title>Re:futile struggle</title>
	<author>swillden</author>
	<datestamp>1259519820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Another possibility is that the next generation is going to grow up almost universally traumatized and defensive.</p></div><p>I sure hope so! Then those with any degree of emotional fortitude will have all the greater advantage because of their willingness to take more social "risks". Success and greatness will come to those who risk, even more so than before because of all the opportunities <i>not</i> being taken advantage of by the cowards.</p></div><p>Social Darwinism is a somewhat debatable philosophy in general, but even if we grant that it's a good idea, you're ignoring the fact that many potentially valuable members of society may be significantly damaged, reducing their value.

</p><p>If you really think that's a good idea, how about this:  Let's forcibly addict all teenagers to meth and crack.  The ones with real willpower and force of character will kick it, rise to the top, and have significantly improved opportunities of success because of the heavily winnowed competition.

</p><p>The meth/crack plan probably really *would* be beneficial to those who manage to rise above it.  They'd have learned a lot about themselves and would be better people for it.  And there's no doubt that much of their potential competition would be removed.  But I hardly think anyone would consider it a way to improve society as a whole (note:  don't confuse this argument with the argument over decriminalization, which is a good idea).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another possibility is that the next generation is going to grow up almost universally traumatized and defensive.I sure hope so !
Then those with any degree of emotional fortitude will have all the greater advantage because of their willingness to take more social " risks " .
Success and greatness will come to those who risk , even more so than before because of all the opportunities not being taken advantage of by the cowards.Social Darwinism is a somewhat debatable philosophy in general , but even if we grant that it 's a good idea , you 're ignoring the fact that many potentially valuable members of society may be significantly damaged , reducing their value .
If you really think that 's a good idea , how about this : Let 's forcibly addict all teenagers to meth and crack .
The ones with real willpower and force of character will kick it , rise to the top , and have significantly improved opportunities of success because of the heavily winnowed competition .
The meth/crack plan probably really * would * be beneficial to those who manage to rise above it .
They 'd have learned a lot about themselves and would be better people for it .
And there 's no doubt that much of their potential competition would be removed .
But I hardly think anyone would consider it a way to improve society as a whole ( note : do n't confuse this argument with the argument over decriminalization , which is a good idea ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another possibility is that the next generation is going to grow up almost universally traumatized and defensive.I sure hope so!
Then those with any degree of emotional fortitude will have all the greater advantage because of their willingness to take more social "risks".
Success and greatness will come to those who risk, even more so than before because of all the opportunities not being taken advantage of by the cowards.Social Darwinism is a somewhat debatable philosophy in general, but even if we grant that it's a good idea, you're ignoring the fact that many potentially valuable members of society may be significantly damaged, reducing their value.
If you really think that's a good idea, how about this:  Let's forcibly addict all teenagers to meth and crack.
The ones with real willpower and force of character will kick it, rise to the top, and have significantly improved opportunities of success because of the heavily winnowed competition.
The meth/crack plan probably really *would* be beneficial to those who manage to rise above it.
They'd have learned a lot about themselves and would be better people for it.
And there's no doubt that much of their potential competition would be removed.
But I hardly think anyone would consider it a way to improve society as a whole (note:  don't confuse this argument with the argument over decriminalization, which is a good idea).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30264496</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing has changed</title>
	<author>rantingkitten</author>
	<datestamp>1259496120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The difference is that nobody really pays attention to nonsense written on a bathroom wall, or idle gossip.  Maybe there will be a bit of a rumor floating around for a while afterwards but it'll die down pretty quickly and in a few months nobody will even remember.  Additionally, with such things, only a small subset of people will hear the rumors / gossip / whatever.<br>
<br>
With the internet, the information (or misinformation) is out there effectively forever.  When you're across the desk interviewing for your new job, the employer didn't hear that rumor that you slept with the cleaning lady at your last job.  But if something like that were posted online, with your full name, the employer is likely to come across it in a routine search, and, whether true or fair or not, this taints his view of you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference is that nobody really pays attention to nonsense written on a bathroom wall , or idle gossip .
Maybe there will be a bit of a rumor floating around for a while afterwards but it 'll die down pretty quickly and in a few months nobody will even remember .
Additionally , with such things , only a small subset of people will hear the rumors / gossip / whatever .
With the internet , the information ( or misinformation ) is out there effectively forever .
When you 're across the desk interviewing for your new job , the employer did n't hear that rumor that you slept with the cleaning lady at your last job .
But if something like that were posted online , with your full name , the employer is likely to come across it in a routine search , and , whether true or fair or not , this taints his view of you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference is that nobody really pays attention to nonsense written on a bathroom wall, or idle gossip.
Maybe there will be a bit of a rumor floating around for a while afterwards but it'll die down pretty quickly and in a few months nobody will even remember.
Additionally, with such things, only a small subset of people will hear the rumors / gossip / whatever.
With the internet, the information (or misinformation) is out there effectively forever.
When you're across the desk interviewing for your new job, the employer didn't hear that rumor that you slept with the cleaning lady at your last job.
But if something like that were posted online, with your full name, the employer is likely to come across it in a routine search, and, whether true or fair or not, this taints his view of you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255162</id>
	<title>its always ifwm when the subject is "you're wrong"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259430480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Aw boo hoo.  It is not at all about "forcing" any kind of "restrictions" on your speech.  But if you are rude and offensive, you shouldn't be at all surprised that you get called for being a rude ignorant twat.  What exactly is the problem with that?  You want to be able to say whatever you like, but others are <i>not</i> allowed to comment on that speech?  If you talk like a cunt, people will call you a cunt, so cry me a river.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Aw boo hoo .
It is not at all about " forcing " any kind of " restrictions " on your speech .
But if you are rude and offensive , you should n't be at all surprised that you get called for being a rude ignorant twat .
What exactly is the problem with that ?
You want to be able to say whatever you like , but others are not allowed to comment on that speech ?
If you talk like a cunt , people will call you a cunt , so cry me a river .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aw boo hoo.
It is not at all about "forcing" any kind of "restrictions" on your speech.
But if you are rude and offensive, you shouldn't be at all surprised that you get called for being a rude ignorant twat.
What exactly is the problem with that?
You want to be able to say whatever you like, but others are not allowed to comment on that speech?
If you talk like a cunt, people will call you a cunt, so cry me a river.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255672</id>
	<title>Re:futile struggle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259435760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Typical of the intellectually lazy Slashdot reader to say it's "free speech" and move on.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is just behind the times, right?</p><p>How do you deal with slander and abuse?  Say I discover Odinlake's real name and home address, and I publish it and say nasty things about him.  Then maybe Odinlake has trouble getting a job, because his prospective employers look him up and see the false information.  It's just free speech, right?  Surely a free society will allow this!  Who are we, Communist China?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Typical of the intellectually lazy Slashdot reader to say it 's " free speech " and move on .
Anyone who thinks otherwise is just behind the times , right ? How do you deal with slander and abuse ?
Say I discover Odinlake 's real name and home address , and I publish it and say nasty things about him .
Then maybe Odinlake has trouble getting a job , because his prospective employers look him up and see the false information .
It 's just free speech , right ?
Surely a free society will allow this !
Who are we , Communist China ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Typical of the intellectually lazy Slashdot reader to say it's "free speech" and move on.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is just behind the times, right?How do you deal with slander and abuse?
Say I discover Odinlake's real name and home address, and I publish it and say nasty things about him.
Then maybe Odinlake has trouble getting a job, because his prospective employers look him up and see the false information.
It's just free speech, right?
Surely a free society will allow this!
Who are we, Communist China?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254670</id>
	<title>Since noone posted this yet...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259425500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm so going to whore karma with <a href="http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/" title="penny-arcade.com">this obligatory Penny-Arcade reference</a> [penny-arcade.com].</p><p>Mod redundant at will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm so going to whore karma with this obligatory Penny-Arcade reference [ penny-arcade.com ] .Mod redundant at will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm so going to whore karma with this obligatory Penny-Arcade reference [penny-arcade.com].Mod redundant at will.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30257410</id>
	<title>Valley of the Squinting Windows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259411280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley\_of\_the\_Squinting\_Windows" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley\_of\_the\_Squinting\_Windows</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>A few students at top-tier liberal arts school I graduated from created an anonymous board for the school during my third year there. The site (and its copycats) didn't become a very big social factor when I was there, but they still exist and I think they're getting more popular. Based on the Wikipedia summary above of the novel, I'd agree with the comparison.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley \ _of \ _the \ _Squinting \ _Windows [ wikipedia.org ] A few students at top-tier liberal arts school I graduated from created an anonymous board for the school during my third year there .
The site ( and its copycats ) did n't become a very big social factor when I was there , but they still exist and I think they 're getting more popular .
Based on the Wikipedia summary above of the novel , I 'd agree with the comparison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley\_of\_the\_Squinting\_Windows [wikipedia.org]A few students at top-tier liberal arts school I graduated from created an anonymous board for the school during my third year there.
The site (and its copycats) didn't become a very big social factor when I was there, but they still exist and I think they're getting more popular.
Based on the Wikipedia summary above of the novel, I'd agree with the comparison.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30261260</id>
	<title>Re:PC, huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259509080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> The chairman rose.
The way we say it now: The chair rose</p></div><p>This is the one that really irritates me.  The derivation of the word is from manus, which is both Latin and old English for hand (and also refers to having power over others in Roman law, which is quite appropriate in this usage).  It has nothing at all to do with gender.  The chairman is the person who handles (manages) the chair.  The chair is the thing he or she sits on.  If you say 'chair,' 'chairperson,' or 'chairwoman' then you just sound ignorant of etymology.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The chairman rose .
The way we say it now : The chair roseThis is the one that really irritates me .
The derivation of the word is from manus , which is both Latin and old English for hand ( and also refers to having power over others in Roman law , which is quite appropriate in this usage ) .
It has nothing at all to do with gender .
The chairman is the person who handles ( manages ) the chair .
The chair is the thing he or she sits on .
If you say 'chair, ' 'chairperson, ' or 'chairwoman ' then you just sound ignorant of etymology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The chairman rose.
The way we say it now: The chair roseThis is the one that really irritates me.
The derivation of the word is from manus, which is both Latin and old English for hand (and also refers to having power over others in Roman law, which is quite appropriate in this usage).
It has nothing at all to do with gender.
The chairman is the person who handles (manages) the chair.
The chair is the thing he or she sits on.
If you say 'chair,' 'chairperson,' or 'chairwoman' then you just sound ignorant of etymology.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256006</id>
	<title>Re:PC, huh?</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1259439000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, or when you've got a real African American who happens to be white getting expelled from his school, and his life effectively ruined.</p><p>I'm sorry, but how other than "African American" are you supposed to identify an American citizen who immigrated from South Africa? If you say a white man can not claim that mantle when a black man can, and it applies, then you are being racist in the name of political correctness (which is, it seems, half the purpose of 'political correctness' in the first place - secreted systematic racism). Period. Either it's racism when it's done to anyone, or you shouldn't be done at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , or when you 've got a real African American who happens to be white getting expelled from his school , and his life effectively ruined.I 'm sorry , but how other than " African American " are you supposed to identify an American citizen who immigrated from South Africa ?
If you say a white man can not claim that mantle when a black man can , and it applies , then you are being racist in the name of political correctness ( which is , it seems , half the purpose of 'political correctness ' in the first place - secreted systematic racism ) .
Period. Either it 's racism when it 's done to anyone , or you should n't be done at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, or when you've got a real African American who happens to be white getting expelled from his school, and his life effectively ruined.I'm sorry, but how other than "African American" are you supposed to identify an American citizen who immigrated from South Africa?
If you say a white man can not claim that mantle when a black man can, and it applies, then you are being racist in the name of political correctness (which is, it seems, half the purpose of 'political correctness' in the first place - secreted systematic racism).
Period. Either it's racism when it's done to anyone, or you shouldn't be done at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254902</id>
	<title>Sooner or later the law will catch up if necessary</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1259427960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this becomes a big enough problem, states, and later Washington, will pass laws reducing privacy protections for slander.</p><p>If this problem gets bad enough, here's how I think it will wash out in 5 or 10 years:</p><p>*A claim of slander against a "John Doe" will have to convince a judge there is merit<br>*The court will consider any obvious mitigating circumstances<br>*If the request is granted, a subpeona will be issued but the results will not be available to the suing party until the target has had a reasonable chance to quash the subpeona under a pseudonym and other privacy protections<br>*Reasonable grounds for quashing would include anything that suggests the free-speech, privacy, and other rights of the speaker outweighted the rights of the aggrieved party<br>*Judges would be encouraged to nip abusive or malicious John Doe lawsuits in the bud</p><p>If things don't get bad enough, you won't see wholesale action in the halls of Congress or state legislatures, and schools will have to continue to address this internally.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this becomes a big enough problem , states , and later Washington , will pass laws reducing privacy protections for slander.If this problem gets bad enough , here 's how I think it will wash out in 5 or 10 years : * A claim of slander against a " John Doe " will have to convince a judge there is merit * The court will consider any obvious mitigating circumstances * If the request is granted , a subpeona will be issued but the results will not be available to the suing party until the target has had a reasonable chance to quash the subpeona under a pseudonym and other privacy protections * Reasonable grounds for quashing would include anything that suggests the free-speech , privacy , and other rights of the speaker outweighted the rights of the aggrieved party * Judges would be encouraged to nip abusive or malicious John Doe lawsuits in the budIf things do n't get bad enough , you wo n't see wholesale action in the halls of Congress or state legislatures , and schools will have to continue to address this internally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this becomes a big enough problem, states, and later Washington, will pass laws reducing privacy protections for slander.If this problem gets bad enough, here's how I think it will wash out in 5 or 10 years:*A claim of slander against a "John Doe" will have to convince a judge there is merit*The court will consider any obvious mitigating circumstances*If the request is granted, a subpeona will be issued but the results will not be available to the suing party until the target has had a reasonable chance to quash the subpeona under a pseudonym and other privacy protections*Reasonable grounds for quashing would include anything that suggests the free-speech, privacy, and other rights of the speaker outweighted the rights of the aggrieved party*Judges would be encouraged to nip abusive or malicious John Doe lawsuits in the budIf things don't get bad enough, you won't see wholesale action in the halls of Congress or state legislatures, and schools will have to continue to address this internally.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255574</id>
	<title>Re:futile struggle</title>
	<author>tukang</author>
	<datestamp>1259434740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>What is it we've told our children for ages - "stop caring, don't give it attention"?</i> </p><p>Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is it we 've told our children for ages - " stop caring , do n't give it attention " ?
Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me</tokentext>
<sentencetext> What is it we've told our children for ages - "stop caring, don't give it attention"?
Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30261086</id>
	<title>Re:futile struggle</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1259507220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And if I wrote an anonymous letter to a potential employer saying that you were a child molester, what would you expect the reaction to be?  The solution to the problem is not censorship, it's people taking responsibility to research the facts on which they make decisions.  I believe something because some anonymous guy alleged it on the Internet is not a valid reason for making decisions.  </p><p>
Companies that use this as part of their decision making process will end up hiring inferior employees (if any: you can probably find anonymous libels about most people) and will be less able to compete.  To be honest, it's a shame we can't do the same with other antidiscrimination laws.  A few high-profile cases of companies failing because their competition hired all of the top talent, while they only hired the top white-male talent would do more for equality in hiring than any amount of legislation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And if I wrote an anonymous letter to a potential employer saying that you were a child molester , what would you expect the reaction to be ?
The solution to the problem is not censorship , it 's people taking responsibility to research the facts on which they make decisions .
I believe something because some anonymous guy alleged it on the Internet is not a valid reason for making decisions .
Companies that use this as part of their decision making process will end up hiring inferior employees ( if any : you can probably find anonymous libels about most people ) and will be less able to compete .
To be honest , it 's a shame we ca n't do the same with other antidiscrimination laws .
A few high-profile cases of companies failing because their competition hired all of the top talent , while they only hired the top white-male talent would do more for equality in hiring than any amount of legislation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if I wrote an anonymous letter to a potential employer saying that you were a child molester, what would you expect the reaction to be?
The solution to the problem is not censorship, it's people taking responsibility to research the facts on which they make decisions.
I believe something because some anonymous guy alleged it on the Internet is not a valid reason for making decisions.
Companies that use this as part of their decision making process will end up hiring inferior employees (if any: you can probably find anonymous libels about most people) and will be less able to compete.
To be honest, it's a shame we can't do the same with other antidiscrimination laws.
A few high-profile cases of companies failing because their competition hired all of the top talent, while they only hired the top white-male talent would do more for equality in hiring than any amount of legislation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254664</id>
	<title>Re:PC, huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259425440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;When someone complains about 'PC' they're just complaining that THEIR version of right/wrong in public has been pushed out by the majority.</p><p>Or, they're just pissed off because perfectly good words are being ruined by less-accurate words, or made up nonsense words.</p><p>Examples:</p><p>The genderless way of saying a car is owned by a single person:  That car is his.<br>The genderless way of saying it now:  That car is theirs.<br>How many people own the car now?  At least two, according to any decent dictionary.  Accuracy (and, quite frankly, grammar) has been sacrificed in the name of PC.  That's bullshit.</p><p>The genderless way of saying the person running a board of directors stood up 50 years ago:  The chairman rose.<br>The way we say it now:  The chair rose.<br>Accuracy, again, has been sacrificed in the name of PC.  I now have to imagine a supernatural event occurred in the boardroom due to the lack of information on how the structure built for sitting rose (Perhaps there was a strong draft?).  That's bullshit.</p><p>The genderless way of saying someone a group of workers entered a covered street level maintenance shaft, 50 years ago:  Workmen entered the manhole.<br>The way we say it now:  Workers entered the maintenance hole.<br>Accuracy, again, lost, but I will say that "workers" is a reasonably accurate substitute for "workmen", and is one of the few cases where the PC movement didn't ruin the language.  Manhole clearly implies a covered maintenance shaft in the street.  A maintenance hole could be any hole, anywhere, that permits maintenance.  Perhaps the workers ate the blue mushroom and managed to fit through the hole for my car's dipstick?  Bullshit.</p><p>I'm still waiting for someone to ruin the genderless word "Mantrap".</p><p>Note to those that don't believe me:  Grab a decent dictionary (OED would be a start) and look up the words "Man", "His", "Men" and other words you have been incorrectly taught always imply gender and open your mind.  They only imply gender if the circumstances suggest they should, such as "He entered the men's washroom", or "Billy gave his candy to John".  When they are said in a more general form, eg:  "All men are created equal", they are genderless.  I know, I know, and I agree, it sucks that English is ambiguous like that.  However, introducing FURTHER inaccuracies into the language for the sake of making people feel better about ambiguous language is just plain stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; When someone complains about 'PC ' they 're just complaining that THEIR version of right/wrong in public has been pushed out by the majority.Or , they 're just pissed off because perfectly good words are being ruined by less-accurate words , or made up nonsense words.Examples : The genderless way of saying a car is owned by a single person : That car is his.The genderless way of saying it now : That car is theirs.How many people own the car now ?
At least two , according to any decent dictionary .
Accuracy ( and , quite frankly , grammar ) has been sacrificed in the name of PC .
That 's bullshit.The genderless way of saying the person running a board of directors stood up 50 years ago : The chairman rose.The way we say it now : The chair rose.Accuracy , again , has been sacrificed in the name of PC .
I now have to imagine a supernatural event occurred in the boardroom due to the lack of information on how the structure built for sitting rose ( Perhaps there was a strong draft ? ) .
That 's bullshit.The genderless way of saying someone a group of workers entered a covered street level maintenance shaft , 50 years ago : Workmen entered the manhole.The way we say it now : Workers entered the maintenance hole.Accuracy , again , lost , but I will say that " workers " is a reasonably accurate substitute for " workmen " , and is one of the few cases where the PC movement did n't ruin the language .
Manhole clearly implies a covered maintenance shaft in the street .
A maintenance hole could be any hole , anywhere , that permits maintenance .
Perhaps the workers ate the blue mushroom and managed to fit through the hole for my car 's dipstick ?
Bullshit.I 'm still waiting for someone to ruin the genderless word " Mantrap " .Note to those that do n't believe me : Grab a decent dictionary ( OED would be a start ) and look up the words " Man " , " His " , " Men " and other words you have been incorrectly taught always imply gender and open your mind .
They only imply gender if the circumstances suggest they should , such as " He entered the men 's washroom " , or " Billy gave his candy to John " .
When they are said in a more general form , eg : " All men are created equal " , they are genderless .
I know , I know , and I agree , it sucks that English is ambiguous like that .
However , introducing FURTHER inaccuracies into the language for the sake of making people feel better about ambiguous language is just plain stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;When someone complains about 'PC' they're just complaining that THEIR version of right/wrong in public has been pushed out by the majority.Or, they're just pissed off because perfectly good words are being ruined by less-accurate words, or made up nonsense words.Examples:The genderless way of saying a car is owned by a single person:  That car is his.The genderless way of saying it now:  That car is theirs.How many people own the car now?
At least two, according to any decent dictionary.
Accuracy (and, quite frankly, grammar) has been sacrificed in the name of PC.
That's bullshit.The genderless way of saying the person running a board of directors stood up 50 years ago:  The chairman rose.The way we say it now:  The chair rose.Accuracy, again, has been sacrificed in the name of PC.
I now have to imagine a supernatural event occurred in the boardroom due to the lack of information on how the structure built for sitting rose (Perhaps there was a strong draft?).
That's bullshit.The genderless way of saying someone a group of workers entered a covered street level maintenance shaft, 50 years ago:  Workmen entered the manhole.The way we say it now:  Workers entered the maintenance hole.Accuracy, again, lost, but I will say that "workers" is a reasonably accurate substitute for "workmen", and is one of the few cases where the PC movement didn't ruin the language.
Manhole clearly implies a covered maintenance shaft in the street.
A maintenance hole could be any hole, anywhere, that permits maintenance.
Perhaps the workers ate the blue mushroom and managed to fit through the hole for my car's dipstick?
Bullshit.I'm still waiting for someone to ruin the genderless word "Mantrap".Note to those that don't believe me:  Grab a decent dictionary (OED would be a start) and look up the words "Man", "His", "Men" and other words you have been incorrectly taught always imply gender and open your mind.
They only imply gender if the circumstances suggest they should, such as "He entered the men's washroom", or "Billy gave his candy to John".
When they are said in a more general form, eg:  "All men are created equal", they are genderless.
I know, I know, and I agree, it sucks that English is ambiguous like that.
However, introducing FURTHER inaccuracies into the language for the sake of making people feel better about ambiguous language is just plain stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254604</id>
	<title>No you are wrong.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259424660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Complaints about PC are generally not about any version of right or wrong. They are complaints about being required to use, or avoid, language, which it is claimed might offend someone.</p><p>I don't care what language you use and do not want to restrict your use of any particular words. You might care what language I use and seek to impose restrictions. Those two approaches are not equivalents and PC falls into the latter.</p><p>Just because two people disagree, it does not mean that both views are equal in some way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Complaints about PC are generally not about any version of right or wrong .
They are complaints about being required to use , or avoid , language , which it is claimed might offend someone.I do n't care what language you use and do not want to restrict your use of any particular words .
You might care what language I use and seek to impose restrictions .
Those two approaches are not equivalents and PC falls into the latter.Just because two people disagree , it does not mean that both views are equal in some way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Complaints about PC are generally not about any version of right or wrong.
They are complaints about being required to use, or avoid, language, which it is claimed might offend someone.I don't care what language you use and do not want to restrict your use of any particular words.
You might care what language I use and seek to impose restrictions.
Those two approaches are not equivalents and PC falls into the latter.Just because two people disagree, it does not mean that both views are equal in some way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255934</id>
	<title>Re:PC, huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259438280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, I disagree, emphatically. Political correctness is much, much more (or less, in some cases) than politeness.</p><p>It is politically incorrect to hold a door for a woman. Yet, an orgy or swinging, and its general acceptance (which probably couldn't be considered 'polite') is quite politically correct. It is politically incorrect to even simply have ideas which are unpopular (about demographics, statistics, climate change, economics, etc.). It is politically incorrect to not hold sympathy for the oppressed in some dystopia (say, Sudan) but at the same time, it's PC to see a dystopia like Cuba as something to be aspired to.</p><p>Political correctness is, well, politically oriented. Almost anything politically correct supports a Marxist or Bolshevik political agenda - one in support of the destruction of traditional values, the support of the State, and the erosion of dignity and self-determination.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , I disagree , emphatically .
Political correctness is much , much more ( or less , in some cases ) than politeness.It is politically incorrect to hold a door for a woman .
Yet , an orgy or swinging , and its general acceptance ( which probably could n't be considered 'polite ' ) is quite politically correct .
It is politically incorrect to even simply have ideas which are unpopular ( about demographics , statistics , climate change , economics , etc. ) .
It is politically incorrect to not hold sympathy for the oppressed in some dystopia ( say , Sudan ) but at the same time , it 's PC to see a dystopia like Cuba as something to be aspired to.Political correctness is , well , politically oriented .
Almost anything politically correct supports a Marxist or Bolshevik political agenda - one in support of the destruction of traditional values , the support of the State , and the erosion of dignity and self-determination .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, I disagree, emphatically.
Political correctness is much, much more (or less, in some cases) than politeness.It is politically incorrect to hold a door for a woman.
Yet, an orgy or swinging, and its general acceptance (which probably couldn't be considered 'polite') is quite politically correct.
It is politically incorrect to even simply have ideas which are unpopular (about demographics, statistics, climate change, economics, etc.).
It is politically incorrect to not hold sympathy for the oppressed in some dystopia (say, Sudan) but at the same time, it's PC to see a dystopia like Cuba as something to be aspired to.Political correctness is, well, politically oriented.
Almost anything politically correct supports a Marxist or Bolshevik political agenda - one in support of the destruction of traditional values, the support of the State, and the erosion of dignity and self-determination.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254640</id>
	<title>Re:PC, huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259425200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Political correctness is nothing but a bunch of random rules of communication setup as a system of traps for people who dare speak their mind. It doesn't make any sense except to derail communication from its intended purpose.</p><p>When you get white Americans calling European nationals who happen to be black 'African Americans' it's gone too far.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Political correctness is nothing but a bunch of random rules of communication setup as a system of traps for people who dare speak their mind .
It does n't make any sense except to derail communication from its intended purpose.When you get white Americans calling European nationals who happen to be black 'African Americans ' it 's gone too far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Political correctness is nothing but a bunch of random rules of communication setup as a system of traps for people who dare speak their mind.
It doesn't make any sense except to derail communication from its intended purpose.When you get white Americans calling European nationals who happen to be black 'African Americans' it's gone too far.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255530</id>
	<title>Re:PC, huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259434260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are larger uses of the term that do end up with the limitations you're talking about and I'm all for calling that out, but I do think there is a place in culture to choose to use new definitions for groups/ideas/whatever that try to peel away hurtful histories that make free and open discussion more difficult, specifically for the historically denigrated groups/ideas.<br> <br>

Having an unpopular opinion is not un-PC, even when it's crazy racist or bigotted. We have words that define those things already. PC is simply about acknowledging that language has history and there are times, if for nothing else than for expediency, when certain terms have to be collectively chosen which allow people to reference things without immediate negative connotations. Now, my PC definition may not be what you were talking about at all, but I wanted to point out there is a concept of PC that does not limit what you can talk about it. Its intention is merely to create a framework whereby everyone feels comfortable participating. I would call this Democratically Correct rather than political, as its intention is to give access to every individual to a larger discourse, but Political is fine. This too can be taken too far and I'm the first one to point that out 'cause my language choices are not always unoffensive to everyone (I'll say fuck as much as I like god damn it!). Stll, where there is an extremely sensitive subject, I am more than willing to at least attempt to find the terms that no group involved will be instantly put-off by so that everyone can access the ideas.<br> <br>

Now this has nothing to do with college kids or any kids making fun of each other, so I'll shut up now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are larger uses of the term that do end up with the limitations you 're talking about and I 'm all for calling that out , but I do think there is a place in culture to choose to use new definitions for groups/ideas/whatever that try to peel away hurtful histories that make free and open discussion more difficult , specifically for the historically denigrated groups/ideas .
Having an unpopular opinion is not un-PC , even when it 's crazy racist or bigotted .
We have words that define those things already .
PC is simply about acknowledging that language has history and there are times , if for nothing else than for expediency , when certain terms have to be collectively chosen which allow people to reference things without immediate negative connotations .
Now , my PC definition may not be what you were talking about at all , but I wanted to point out there is a concept of PC that does not limit what you can talk about it .
Its intention is merely to create a framework whereby everyone feels comfortable participating .
I would call this Democratically Correct rather than political , as its intention is to give access to every individual to a larger discourse , but Political is fine .
This too can be taken too far and I 'm the first one to point that out 'cause my language choices are not always unoffensive to everyone ( I 'll say fuck as much as I like god damn it ! ) .
Stll , where there is an extremely sensitive subject , I am more than willing to at least attempt to find the terms that no group involved will be instantly put-off by so that everyone can access the ideas .
Now this has nothing to do with college kids or any kids making fun of each other , so I 'll shut up now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are larger uses of the term that do end up with the limitations you're talking about and I'm all for calling that out, but I do think there is a place in culture to choose to use new definitions for groups/ideas/whatever that try to peel away hurtful histories that make free and open discussion more difficult, specifically for the historically denigrated groups/ideas.
Having an unpopular opinion is not un-PC, even when it's crazy racist or bigotted.
We have words that define those things already.
PC is simply about acknowledging that language has history and there are times, if for nothing else than for expediency, when certain terms have to be collectively chosen which allow people to reference things without immediate negative connotations.
Now, my PC definition may not be what you were talking about at all, but I wanted to point out there is a concept of PC that does not limit what you can talk about it.
Its intention is merely to create a framework whereby everyone feels comfortable participating.
I would call this Democratically Correct rather than political, as its intention is to give access to every individual to a larger discourse, but Political is fine.
This too can be taken too far and I'm the first one to point that out 'cause my language choices are not always unoffensive to everyone (I'll say fuck as much as I like god damn it!).
Stll, where there is an extremely sensitive subject, I am more than willing to at least attempt to find the terms that no group involved will be instantly put-off by so that everyone can access the ideas.
Now this has nothing to do with college kids or any kids making fun of each other, so I'll shut up now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254776</id>
	<title>There need to be noise filters...</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1259426520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>on anything that is driven by user content. Unmoderated content is simply useless and the more inter-connected that user accounts become, the better. A cross-site karma system would be excellent, eventually anyone who doesn't want to have to read shit from every moron with a keyboard won't have to. If karma could be propagated across news-sites, IMDB,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., etc. and linked into everyone's Facebook, we'd be better off. I just don't read unmoderated, anonymous content; it's worthless. There will always be fuckwads (sorry, reference to the Penny-Arcade comic another commenter posted) on the Internet, but it doesn't mean we can't flag them as not worth listening to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>on anything that is driven by user content .
Unmoderated content is simply useless and the more inter-connected that user accounts become , the better .
A cross-site karma system would be excellent , eventually anyone who does n't want to have to read shit from every moron with a keyboard wo n't have to .
If karma could be propagated across news-sites , IMDB , /. , etc .
and linked into everyone 's Facebook , we 'd be better off .
I just do n't read unmoderated , anonymous content ; it 's worthless .
There will always be fuckwads ( sorry , reference to the Penny-Arcade comic another commenter posted ) on the Internet , but it does n't mean we ca n't flag them as not worth listening to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>on anything that is driven by user content.
Unmoderated content is simply useless and the more inter-connected that user accounts become, the better.
A cross-site karma system would be excellent, eventually anyone who doesn't want to have to read shit from every moron with a keyboard won't have to.
If karma could be propagated across news-sites, IMDB, /., etc.
and linked into everyone's Facebook, we'd be better off.
I just don't read unmoderated, anonymous content; it's worthless.
There will always be fuckwads (sorry, reference to the Penny-Arcade comic another commenter posted) on the Internet, but it doesn't mean we can't flag them as not worth listening to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254462</id>
	<title>Herpes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259422980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Soulskill has herpes!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Soulskill has herpes !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Soulskill has herpes!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254962</id>
	<title>Re:PC, huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259428680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGAOCVwLrXo</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = jGAOCVwLrXo</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGAOCVwLrXo</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254752</id>
	<title>Real reason for their objection?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259426280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's the real reason for the schools' objection to it? I always thought it was because it destroyed school property. If it's virtual, then as a student you have to seek it out to see it, rather than seeing it in the bathroom stalls whether you like it or not. Sounds like it was really about control. They want control over what students say to each other at all times. Heaven forbid students organize in various ways without permission.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the real reason for the schools ' objection to it ?
I always thought it was because it destroyed school property .
If it 's virtual , then as a student you have to seek it out to see it , rather than seeing it in the bathroom stalls whether you like it or not .
Sounds like it was really about control .
They want control over what students say to each other at all times .
Heaven forbid students organize in various ways without permission .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the real reason for the schools' objection to it?
I always thought it was because it destroyed school property.
If it's virtual, then as a student you have to seek it out to see it, rather than seeing it in the bathroom stalls whether you like it or not.
Sounds like it was really about control.
They want control over what students say to each other at all times.
Heaven forbid students organize in various ways without permission.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30259678</id>
	<title>overwhelm the social engineering - flood everybody</title>
	<author>gregconquest</author>
	<datestamp>1259525940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One strategy would be to flood such sites with scripts that make salacious stories and insert random names and hacked student lists if available. Flood the sites with everyone's name. That is the most direct way to finally convince the low-hanging fruit that the sites have no credibility.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One strategy would be to flood such sites with scripts that make salacious stories and insert random names and hacked student lists if available .
Flood the sites with everyone 's name .
That is the most direct way to finally convince the low-hanging fruit that the sites have no credibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One strategy would be to flood such sites with scripts that make salacious stories and insert random names and hacked student lists if available.
Flood the sites with everyone's name.
That is the most direct way to finally convince the low-hanging fruit that the sites have no credibility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254460</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30258494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30257694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30259206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30257780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30261228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30259766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30257936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30257410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30266742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30257202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30266722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30261042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30257750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30261086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30259708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30264496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30270358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30259678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30257962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30261260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30262482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_132256_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_132256.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256506
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_132256.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255032
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256760
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30259766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254604
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255450
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254664
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256690
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30261260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256006
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256654
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254886
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30259708
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30261228
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255010
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254546
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255530
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254628
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255934
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_132256.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30264496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_132256.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255150
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_132256.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254670
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_132256.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30259206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255228
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30257410
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30257202
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30257962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254832
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30257694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_132256.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30259678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30270358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_132256.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30257780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30258494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256170
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_132256.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254866
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30266742
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255050
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30257936
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256396
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30257750
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30261042
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30266722
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256612
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256658
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30255306
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30262482
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30254756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30256496
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_132256.30261086
</commentlist>
</conversation>
