<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_01_0126220</id>
	<title>US Congressman Announces Plans To Probe Wikileaks</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1259673540000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eldavojohn writes <i>"Congressman <a href="http://peteking.house.gov/index.shtml">Peter King (R-NY)</a> is <a href="http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/king-to-probe-release-of-9-11-pager-messages-1.1625381">calling for a probe into Wikileaks</a> with regard to the recent publication of <a href="//mobile.slashdot.org/story/09/11/25/1320215/Wikileaks-Publishes-500000-911-Pager-Messages">half a million 9/11 pager messages</a>. He has announced that he plans to have his Washington staff begin a preliminary investigation because Wikileaks' action 'raises security issues.' A word of caution: Congressman King has been known to make <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoDpfsQJ-N8">inflammatory</a> and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-gH2gAXjAw">unpopular</a> statements."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " Congressman Peter King ( R-NY ) is calling for a probe into Wikileaks with regard to the recent publication of half a million 9/11 pager messages .
He has announced that he plans to have his Washington staff begin a preliminary investigation because Wikileaks ' action 'raises security issues .
' A word of caution : Congressman King has been known to make inflammatory and unpopular statements .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "Congressman Peter King (R-NY) is calling for a probe into Wikileaks with regard to the recent publication of half a million 9/11 pager messages.
He has announced that he plans to have his Washington staff begin a preliminary investigation because Wikileaks' action 'raises security issues.
' A word of caution: Congressman King has been known to make inflammatory and unpopular statements.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30286122</id>
	<title>of course it raises security issues</title>
	<author>Khashishi</author>
	<datestamp>1259695200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it wouldn't be worthwhile if it didn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it would n't be worthwhile if it did n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it wouldn't be worthwhile if it didn't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282506</id>
	<title>Re:Waste of tax money</title>
	<author>Grygus</author>
	<datestamp>1259679360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't that what we said about Pirate Bay?  Didn't those guys end up in jail without breaking any laws in their country?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't that what we said about Pirate Bay ?
Did n't those guys end up in jail without breaking any laws in their country ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't that what we said about Pirate Bay?
Didn't those guys end up in jail without breaking any laws in their country?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282436</id>
	<title>Re:Waste of tax money</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1259679000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>it is little wonder that US is facing a deficit in the small trillions.</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Come now. Of course in order to be able to read these messages, his staff will need new computers, blackberries, iPhones and high speed internet connections - both at the office and, because they're so hard-working, at home too. It's only logical that such an undertaking cost at least $10-15 million. But just think, this is money the government is spending to stimulate the private sector, which means that by doing this they will save Manuel and Jos&#233;'s jobs (you know, the guys that sweep up at the Apple and Dell plants?). IT HAS TO BE WORTH IT!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sarcasm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it is little wonder that US is facing a deficit in the small trillions .
      Come now .
Of course in order to be able to read these messages , his staff will need new computers , blackberries , iPhones and high speed internet connections - both at the office and , because they 're so hard-working , at home too .
It 's only logical that such an undertaking cost at least $ 10-15 million .
But just think , this is money the government is spending to stimulate the private sector , which means that by doing this they will save Manuel and Jos   's jobs ( you know , the guys that sweep up at the Apple and Dell plants ? ) .
IT HAS TO BE WORTH IT !
/sarcasm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it is little wonder that US is facing a deficit in the small trillions.
      Come now.
Of course in order to be able to read these messages, his staff will need new computers, blackberries, iPhones and high speed internet connections - both at the office and, because they're so hard-working, at home too.
It's only logical that such an undertaking cost at least $10-15 million.
But just think, this is money the government is spending to stimulate the private sector, which means that by doing this they will save Manuel and José's jobs (you know, the guys that sweep up at the Apple and Dell plants?).
IT HAS TO BE WORTH IT!
/sarcasm</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282582</id>
	<title>"Micks"?</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1259679780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you do realize that using racial slurs makes you just as bad as what you are complaining about, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you do realize that using racial slurs makes you just as bad as what you are complaining about , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you do realize that using racial slurs makes you just as bad as what you are complaining about, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282662</id>
	<title>Re:Second Flamebait</title>
	<author>gEvil (beta)</author>
	<datestamp>1259680200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>
While I don't disagree he's a bigot, you do realize that your post is just as bigotted as statement, right?
</i> <br>
<br>
Considering the subject line of his post, I can assure you that he's aware of it and that it was fully intentional.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I do n't disagree he 's a bigot , you do realize that your post is just as bigotted as statement , right ?
Considering the subject line of his post , I can assure you that he 's aware of it and that it was fully intentional .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
While I don't disagree he's a bigot, you do realize that your post is just as bigotted as statement, right?
Considering the subject line of his post, I can assure you that he's aware of it and that it was fully intentional.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282442</id>
	<title>Re:Waste of tax money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259679060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;US is facing a deficit in the small trillions</p><p>Yes yes, but those are <i>small</i> trillions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; US is facing a deficit in the small trillionsYes yes , but those are small trillions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;US is facing a deficit in the small trillionsYes yes, but those are small trillions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282254</id>
	<title>Re:Second Flamebait</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259677920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Religion is the best mass-destruction weapon ever created by mankind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Religion is the best mass-destruction weapon ever created by mankind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Religion is the best mass-destruction weapon ever created by mankind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282334</id>
	<title>unpopular statements?</title>
	<author>the\_Bionic\_lemming</author>
	<datestamp>1259678460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HUH? The overreporting of MJ INDUCED projectile vomiting. If anything, it's proof that this congress critter has at least an idea of how mainstream america loathes the california granola.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HUH ?
The overreporting of MJ INDUCED projectile vomiting .
If anything , it 's proof that this congress critter has at least an idea of how mainstream america loathes the california granola .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HUH?
The overreporting of MJ INDUCED projectile vomiting.
If anything, it's proof that this congress critter has at least an idea of how mainstream america loathes the california granola.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30285242</id>
	<title>Ah my dear representative...</title>
	<author>Slipped\_Disk</author>
	<datestamp>1259691840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For the record as someone in Peter King's district:<br>
Rep. King is a douche.<br>
As a representative he is useless, his office staff is less than useless.<br>
I'm *THRILLED* to see how he plans to waste^Wspend my tax dollars "look[ing] into [WikiLeaks]".<br>
<br>
That's my only statement on the matter: I'm done. Ignore, Flame or Agree to your heart's content.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the record as someone in Peter King 's district : Rep. King is a douche .
As a representative he is useless , his office staff is less than useless .
I 'm * THRILLED * to see how he plans to waste ^ Wspend my tax dollars " look [ ing ] into [ WikiLeaks ] " .
That 's my only statement on the matter : I 'm done .
Ignore , Flame or Agree to your heart 's content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the record as someone in Peter King's district:
Rep. King is a douche.
As a representative he is useless, his office staff is less than useless.
I'm *THRILLED* to see how he plans to waste^Wspend my tax dollars "look[ing] into [WikiLeaks]".
That's my only statement on the matter: I'm done.
Ignore, Flame or Agree to your heart's content.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30285378</id>
	<title>Re:Okay lets address these "Unpopular statements."</title>
	<author>ColdWetDog</author>
	<datestamp>1259692440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Okay, first, kdawson, you are an idiot</p></div></blockquote><p>

You must be new here.</p><blockquote><div><p>you are simply and opaquely trying to stir up a hornet's nest for inflamatory comments, and therefore hits.</p></div></blockquote><p>

You must be new here.</p><blockquote><div><p>a responsible journalist does have a duty to show a pattern of political behavior</p></div></blockquote><p>

Man, you really must be new here.</p><blockquote><div><p>Way to go, you get the skippy the pinhead award for the day kdawson.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Man, you really, really must be new here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , first , kdawson , you are an idiot You must be new here.you are simply and opaquely trying to stir up a hornet 's nest for inflamatory comments , and therefore hits .
You must be new here.a responsible journalist does have a duty to show a pattern of political behavior Man , you really must be new here.Way to go , you get the skippy the pinhead award for the day kdawson .
Man , you really , really must be new here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, first, kdawson, you are an idiot

You must be new here.you are simply and opaquely trying to stir up a hornet's nest for inflamatory comments, and therefore hits.
You must be new here.a responsible journalist does have a duty to show a pattern of political behavior

Man, you really must be new here.Way to go, you get the skippy the pinhead award for the day kdawson.
Man, you really, really must be new here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30283038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282482</id>
	<title>MOD PARENT DOWN</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259679240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>sympathetic to radical Christianity (including Catholicism, the biggest business on the planet), and this asshole is no exception</p></div></blockquote><p>Blatant trolling. I'm not religious, but Mods, hello?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>sympathetic to radical Christianity ( including Catholicism , the biggest business on the planet ) , and this asshole is no exceptionBlatant trolling .
I 'm not religious , but Mods , hello ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sympathetic to radical Christianity (including Catholicism, the biggest business on the planet), and this asshole is no exceptionBlatant trolling.
I'm not religious, but Mods, hello?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30283338</id>
	<title>Re:Waste of tax money</title>
	<author>cgenman</author>
	<datestamp>1259683380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>it is little wonder that US is facing a deficit in the small trillions.</i></p><p>To be fair, there is really no such thing as a small trillion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it is little wonder that US is facing a deficit in the small trillions.To be fair , there is really no such thing as a small trillion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it is little wonder that US is facing a deficit in the small trillions.To be fair, there is really no such thing as a small trillion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30283112</id>
	<title>Re:cleartext unencrypted nation-wide traffic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259682600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't find it but when messing with scanners awhile back, there was a US law that says you can't share any information you receive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't find it but when messing with scanners awhile back , there was a US law that says you ca n't share any information you receive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't find it but when messing with scanners awhile back, there was a US law that says you can't share any information you receive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282746</id>
	<title>Re:Second Flamebait</title>
	<author>mdm-adph</author>
	<datestamp>1259680740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now -- tell us how you really feel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now -- tell us how you really feel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now -- tell us how you really feel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282476</id>
	<title>Ah, the standard complaint</title>
	<author>emagery</author>
	<datestamp>1259679240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>'national security'<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... as far as I am concerned, if this is scaring some people in power, it's doing its job.  It may not be press in the traditional sense, but it does appear to be something of a resurrection of that old check and balance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>'national security ' ... as far as I am concerned , if this is scaring some people in power , it 's doing its job .
It may not be press in the traditional sense , but it does appear to be something of a resurrection of that old check and balance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'national security' ... as far as I am concerned, if this is scaring some people in power, it's doing its job.
It may not be press in the traditional sense, but it does appear to be something of a resurrection of that old check and balance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282966</id>
	<title>Re:Second Flamebait</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259682000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Full disclosure: this post made me happy.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>On the subject, perhaps wikileaks has been too effective in what they do since politicians are getting interested. It's funny how it's the same in US and China too, you have to carelly watch what you're saying...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Full disclosure : this post made me happy .
: ) On the subject , perhaps wikileaks has been too effective in what they do since politicians are getting interested .
It 's funny how it 's the same in US and China too , you have to carelly watch what you 're saying.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Full disclosure: this post made me happy.
:)On the subject, perhaps wikileaks has been too effective in what they do since politicians are getting interested.
It's funny how it's the same in US and China too, you have to carelly watch what you're saying...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30285386</id>
	<title>Popularity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259692440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed, a politicians ability to say popular things always tops my list of criteria.  If it's not popular it's obviously wrong, right?</p><p>Only evil people say unpopular things.  I can totally understand why Slashdot types would be repelled by unpopular statements...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , a politicians ability to say popular things always tops my list of criteria .
If it 's not popular it 's obviously wrong , right ? Only evil people say unpopular things .
I can totally understand why Slashdot types would be repelled by unpopular statements.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, a politicians ability to say popular things always tops my list of criteria.
If it's not popular it's obviously wrong, right?Only evil people say unpopular things.
I can totally understand why Slashdot types would be repelled by unpopular statements...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30283038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30284940</id>
	<title>Pager base stations save messages.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259690460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone who has run a pager system before. The secret of where the messages came from is a boring story. The pager base stations have a FIFO queue of messages to be transmitted and retransmitted on rotating cycle. The messages are stored on a plain old hard drive (In our system as FAT32). A 8GB HD can hold *a*lot* of pager messages, I would not be suprised if by the time the tech checked the HD it had 4 Months of msgs even on a busy system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who has run a pager system before .
The secret of where the messages came from is a boring story .
The pager base stations have a FIFO queue of messages to be transmitted and retransmitted on rotating cycle .
The messages are stored on a plain old hard drive ( In our system as FAT32 ) .
A 8GB HD can hold * a * lot * of pager messages , I would not be suprised if by the time the tech checked the HD it had 4 Months of msgs even on a busy system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who has run a pager system before.
The secret of where the messages came from is a boring story.
The pager base stations have a FIFO queue of messages to be transmitted and retransmitted on rotating cycle.
The messages are stored on a plain old hard drive (In our system as FAT32).
A 8GB HD can hold *a*lot* of pager messages, I would not be suprised if by the time the tech checked the HD it had 4 Months of msgs even on a busy system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282502</id>
	<title>Re:Waste of tax money</title>
	<author>halcyon1234</author>
	<datestamp>1259679300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What will his staff do, read the Wikipedia page about Wikileaks and report back? With senators having so much free time and resources, it is little wonder that US is facing a deficit in the small trillions.</p></div></blockquote><p>Not really. You see, by "probe", they mean "skim until the Senator's name comes up".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What will his staff do , read the Wikipedia page about Wikileaks and report back ?
With senators having so much free time and resources , it is little wonder that US is facing a deficit in the small trillions.Not really .
You see , by " probe " , they mean " skim until the Senator 's name comes up " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What will his staff do, read the Wikipedia page about Wikileaks and report back?
With senators having so much free time and resources, it is little wonder that US is facing a deficit in the small trillions.Not really.
You see, by "probe", they mean "skim until the Senator's name comes up".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30285566</id>
	<title>Sad But Not Surprising</title>
	<author>Brian Ribbon</author>
	<datestamp>1259693220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspected that something like this would happen. Recent events suggest that several countries are cooperating to censor controversial content which opposes their use of fear-based government.</p><p>Last week, an international operation against a pro-paedophile website/forum led to arrests of people in several countries, including the USA, The Netherlands, Chile, New Zealand and Brazil. One of the men was arrested for merely possessing an illegal weapon and drugs. Some people were raided but not arrested, as they hadn't violated <i>any</i> laws. The FBI <a href="http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/feds\_make\_porn\_ring\_arrests\_in\_metro\_112509" title="myfoxatlanta.com">claimed</a> [myfoxatlanta.com] that the website was a "child pornography ring", however I know a number of people who posted at the forum, who provide information which debunks the claims of the FBI. According to one person, the website had been online for 8 years, with a membership of over 50,000 people. It had apparently not masked its location (a major web host in The Netherlands), so if it was a child pornography ring, it would presumably have been taken offline years ago. Furthermore, an operation against a <i>real</i> child pornography ring with over 50,000 members would have made international headlines.</p><p>In a <a href="http://www.boychat.org/messages/1190487.htm" title="boychat.org">post on another pro-paedophile forum</a> [boychat.org], I suggested that the closure of the pro-paedophile website was an attempt to test the feasibility of international cooperation in online censorship, in cases where evidence of criminality is limited or fabricated. Very few people believe that paedophiles can ever be innocent, so a pro-paedophile website was an easy preliminary target. I suspected then, and even more so now, that <i>Wikileaks</i> is the ultimate target of international online censorship. No government likes criticism or dissent on the internet, and one shouldn't assume that China is the only country who will crush internet-based dissent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspected that something like this would happen .
Recent events suggest that several countries are cooperating to censor controversial content which opposes their use of fear-based government.Last week , an international operation against a pro-paedophile website/forum led to arrests of people in several countries , including the USA , The Netherlands , Chile , New Zealand and Brazil .
One of the men was arrested for merely possessing an illegal weapon and drugs .
Some people were raided but not arrested , as they had n't violated any laws .
The FBI claimed [ myfoxatlanta.com ] that the website was a " child pornography ring " , however I know a number of people who posted at the forum , who provide information which debunks the claims of the FBI .
According to one person , the website had been online for 8 years , with a membership of over 50,000 people .
It had apparently not masked its location ( a major web host in The Netherlands ) , so if it was a child pornography ring , it would presumably have been taken offline years ago .
Furthermore , an operation against a real child pornography ring with over 50,000 members would have made international headlines.In a post on another pro-paedophile forum [ boychat.org ] , I suggested that the closure of the pro-paedophile website was an attempt to test the feasibility of international cooperation in online censorship , in cases where evidence of criminality is limited or fabricated .
Very few people believe that paedophiles can ever be innocent , so a pro-paedophile website was an easy preliminary target .
I suspected then , and even more so now , that Wikileaks is the ultimate target of international online censorship .
No government likes criticism or dissent on the internet , and one should n't assume that China is the only country who will crush internet-based dissent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspected that something like this would happen.
Recent events suggest that several countries are cooperating to censor controversial content which opposes their use of fear-based government.Last week, an international operation against a pro-paedophile website/forum led to arrests of people in several countries, including the USA, The Netherlands, Chile, New Zealand and Brazil.
One of the men was arrested for merely possessing an illegal weapon and drugs.
Some people were raided but not arrested, as they hadn't violated any laws.
The FBI claimed [myfoxatlanta.com] that the website was a "child pornography ring", however I know a number of people who posted at the forum, who provide information which debunks the claims of the FBI.
According to one person, the website had been online for 8 years, with a membership of over 50,000 people.
It had apparently not masked its location (a major web host in The Netherlands), so if it was a child pornography ring, it would presumably have been taken offline years ago.
Furthermore, an operation against a real child pornography ring with over 50,000 members would have made international headlines.In a post on another pro-paedophile forum [boychat.org], I suggested that the closure of the pro-paedophile website was an attempt to test the feasibility of international cooperation in online censorship, in cases where evidence of criminality is limited or fabricated.
Very few people believe that paedophiles can ever be innocent, so a pro-paedophile website was an easy preliminary target.
I suspected then, and even more so now, that Wikileaks is the ultimate target of international online censorship.
No government likes criticism or dissent on the internet, and one shouldn't assume that China is the only country who will crush internet-based dissent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282600</id>
	<title>Re:Waste of tax money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259679840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wikileaks is hosted by a Swedish company. The US can't do shit about it.</p></div><p>The United States and Sweden have strong economic relations. The United States is currently the third largest Swedish export trade partner, and US companies are the most represented foreign companies in Sweden.</p><p>'d be a shame if anything were to happen to those strong relations...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikileaks is hosted by a Swedish company .
The US ca n't do shit about it.The United States and Sweden have strong economic relations .
The United States is currently the third largest Swedish export trade partner , and US companies are the most represented foreign companies in Sweden .
'd be a shame if anything were to happen to those strong relations.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikileaks is hosted by a Swedish company.
The US can't do shit about it.The United States and Sweden have strong economic relations.
The United States is currently the third largest Swedish export trade partner, and US companies are the most represented foreign companies in Sweden.
'd be a shame if anything were to happen to those strong relations...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30287556</id>
	<title>Yeah, I was curious about this.</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1259700000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FTFA:<p><div class="quote"><p>Concerned about the release of  500,000 intercepted pager messages from Sept. 11, 2001, Rep. Peter King said he plans to have his Washington staff begin a preliminary investigation.</p></div><p>
I know that Congressional staffs are bloated and excessive, but why the hell do we just accept things like this? The congressional body is supposed to write and develop legislation. In order to do so, they need the advice and consultation of experts in various fields, sure, but is every congress critter entitled to his own investigation body? If there really is a security matter on wikileaks that regards national security on a federal level, we already have tax sinks and bodies designed to investigate it. It is called the Executive branch, which comes complete with add ons like the CIA, the FBI, the NRO, the NSA, the DHS, and so on and on and on. So when did it become the legislative branch's job to investigate possible criminal/suspicious activity? Last time I checked those responsibilities were delegated to an entirely separate branch of government for a very specific and important reason: Checks and Balances. When did we throw out the very foundational principles of our government? What amendment in the Constitution was ratified that said legislative employees had power of execution?
<br> <br>
Perhaps I am living in a dream world here, but it seems to me that having a body of (possibly) untrained aides of legislative employees perform any sort of investigation for 'security' purposes is as unconstitutional as it comes. Where the hell is the activist group to file a lawsuit for the Supreme Court to try regarding a breach of checks and balances? FFS we throw a temper tantrum over animals being shot up with medical test drugs or research into human tissue growth that potentially could save the lives of thousands, but no one on the street gives a damn about their own government destroying the very principles it was founded on? Lame...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTFA : Concerned about the release of 500,000 intercepted pager messages from Sept. 11 , 2001 , Rep. Peter King said he plans to have his Washington staff begin a preliminary investigation .
I know that Congressional staffs are bloated and excessive , but why the hell do we just accept things like this ?
The congressional body is supposed to write and develop legislation .
In order to do so , they need the advice and consultation of experts in various fields , sure , but is every congress critter entitled to his own investigation body ?
If there really is a security matter on wikileaks that regards national security on a federal level , we already have tax sinks and bodies designed to investigate it .
It is called the Executive branch , which comes complete with add ons like the CIA , the FBI , the NRO , the NSA , the DHS , and so on and on and on .
So when did it become the legislative branch 's job to investigate possible criminal/suspicious activity ?
Last time I checked those responsibilities were delegated to an entirely separate branch of government for a very specific and important reason : Checks and Balances .
When did we throw out the very foundational principles of our government ?
What amendment in the Constitution was ratified that said legislative employees had power of execution ?
Perhaps I am living in a dream world here , but it seems to me that having a body of ( possibly ) untrained aides of legislative employees perform any sort of investigation for 'security ' purposes is as unconstitutional as it comes .
Where the hell is the activist group to file a lawsuit for the Supreme Court to try regarding a breach of checks and balances ?
FFS we throw a temper tantrum over animals being shot up with medical test drugs or research into human tissue growth that potentially could save the lives of thousands , but no one on the street gives a damn about their own government destroying the very principles it was founded on ?
Lame.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTFA:Concerned about the release of  500,000 intercepted pager messages from Sept. 11, 2001, Rep. Peter King said he plans to have his Washington staff begin a preliminary investigation.
I know that Congressional staffs are bloated and excessive, but why the hell do we just accept things like this?
The congressional body is supposed to write and develop legislation.
In order to do so, they need the advice and consultation of experts in various fields, sure, but is every congress critter entitled to his own investigation body?
If there really is a security matter on wikileaks that regards national security on a federal level, we already have tax sinks and bodies designed to investigate it.
It is called the Executive branch, which comes complete with add ons like the CIA, the FBI, the NRO, the NSA, the DHS, and so on and on and on.
So when did it become the legislative branch's job to investigate possible criminal/suspicious activity?
Last time I checked those responsibilities were delegated to an entirely separate branch of government for a very specific and important reason: Checks and Balances.
When did we throw out the very foundational principles of our government?
What amendment in the Constitution was ratified that said legislative employees had power of execution?
Perhaps I am living in a dream world here, but it seems to me that having a body of (possibly) untrained aides of legislative employees perform any sort of investigation for 'security' purposes is as unconstitutional as it comes.
Where the hell is the activist group to file a lawsuit for the Supreme Court to try regarding a breach of checks and balances?
FFS we throw a temper tantrum over animals being shot up with medical test drugs or research into human tissue growth that potentially could save the lives of thousands, but no one on the street gives a damn about their own government destroying the very principles it was founded on?
Lame...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282354</id>
	<title>Re:Waste of tax money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259678580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wikileaks is hosted by a Swedish company. The US can't do shit about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikileaks is hosted by a Swedish company .
The US ca n't do shit about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikileaks is hosted by a Swedish company.
The US can't do shit about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30292422</id>
	<title>Looting</title>
	<author>Voulnet</author>
	<datestamp>1259679540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Frm: DKU@att.net Sub: Going to DC Txt: Well, night fall is here. Its time to do some looting. I need a microwave. Request???"<br><br>That is one bastard who didn't mind the catastrophe. Looting a microwave, WTF?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Frm : DKU @ att.net Sub : Going to DC Txt : Well , night fall is here .
Its time to do some looting .
I need a microwave .
Request ? ? ? " That is one bastard who did n't mind the catastrophe .
Looting a microwave , WTF ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Frm: DKU@att.net Sub: Going to DC Txt: Well, night fall is here.
Its time to do some looting.
I need a microwave.
Request???"That is one bastard who didn't mind the catastrophe.
Looting a microwave, WTF?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282148</id>
	<title>Second Flamebait</title>
	<author>Ethanol-fueled</author>
	<datestamp>1259677140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the Wikipedia:<blockquote><div><p>His family has strong Irish roots that trace back to County Galway and County Limerick...<br> <br>


King graduated from St. Francis College in Brooklyn in 1965 and went on to get his Juris Doctorate from the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1968...<br> <br>

He was branded by a judge in a Northern Ireland court "an obvious collaborator with the IRA". He became involved with NORAID, an organization that the British, Irish and US governments accuse of financing IRA terrorist activities and providing them with weapons. He was banned from appearing on British TV for his pro IRA views and refusing to condemn IRA terrorism in the UK. <br> <br>

In 2000, he called then-presidential candidate George W. Bush a tool of "anti-Catholic bigoted forces."
King worked extensively with the administration and supported its decision to invade Iraq.<br> <br>

In a September 2007 interview with the website Politico.com, King said that "There are too many mosques in this country... <b>There are too many people sympathetic to radical Islam</b>."</p></div></blockquote><p>

There are a lot more boozed-up hicks and Micks in America who are implicitly sympathetic to radical Christianity (including Catholicism, the biggest business on the planet), and this asshole is no exception. They should shove their crucifixes and rosaries and hypocritical dark-age censorship up their priest-penetrated asses.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the Wikipedia : His family has strong Irish roots that trace back to County Galway and County Limerick.. . King graduated from St. Francis College in Brooklyn in 1965 and went on to get his Juris Doctorate from the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1968.. . He was branded by a judge in a Northern Ireland court " an obvious collaborator with the IRA " .
He became involved with NORAID , an organization that the British , Irish and US governments accuse of financing IRA terrorist activities and providing them with weapons .
He was banned from appearing on British TV for his pro IRA views and refusing to condemn IRA terrorism in the UK .
In 2000 , he called then-presidential candidate George W. Bush a tool of " anti-Catholic bigoted forces .
" King worked extensively with the administration and supported its decision to invade Iraq .
In a September 2007 interview with the website Politico.com , King said that " There are too many mosques in this country... There are too many people sympathetic to radical Islam .
" There are a lot more boozed-up hicks and Micks in America who are implicitly sympathetic to radical Christianity ( including Catholicism , the biggest business on the planet ) , and this asshole is no exception .
They should shove their crucifixes and rosaries and hypocritical dark-age censorship up their priest-penetrated asses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the Wikipedia:His family has strong Irish roots that trace back to County Galway and County Limerick... 


King graduated from St. Francis College in Brooklyn in 1965 and went on to get his Juris Doctorate from the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1968... 

He was branded by a judge in a Northern Ireland court "an obvious collaborator with the IRA".
He became involved with NORAID, an organization that the British, Irish and US governments accuse of financing IRA terrorist activities and providing them with weapons.
He was banned from appearing on British TV for his pro IRA views and refusing to condemn IRA terrorism in the UK.
In 2000, he called then-presidential candidate George W. Bush a tool of "anti-Catholic bigoted forces.
"
King worked extensively with the administration and supported its decision to invade Iraq.
In a September 2007 interview with the website Politico.com, King said that "There are too many mosques in this country... There are too many people sympathetic to radical Islam.
"

There are a lot more boozed-up hicks and Micks in America who are implicitly sympathetic to radical Christianity (including Catholicism, the biggest business on the planet), and this asshole is no exception.
They should shove their crucifixes and rosaries and hypocritical dark-age censorship up their priest-penetrated asses.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30284532</id>
	<title>Re:cleartext unencrypted nation-wide traffic</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1259688720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So what is the big deal? This data was sent out unencrypted from many transmitters all across the nation. It would have been (and still is) very easy to intercept. There is no data security.</p></div><p>The telecommunications privacy act made it illegal to pass on any information recorded that wasn't intended for you to receive (I'm over-simplifying) - this law was a compromise between the telephone companies and everyone else - instead of requiring encryption for over the air stuff, they just made it illegal to do anything with the information intercepted - saving the telcos the cost having to implement encryption.  A number of congress droids who thought it was a good idea have been hoisted by their own petard when some of their in-the-clear cell phone conversations were recorded and surreptitiously released.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what is the big deal ?
This data was sent out unencrypted from many transmitters all across the nation .
It would have been ( and still is ) very easy to intercept .
There is no data security.The telecommunications privacy act made it illegal to pass on any information recorded that was n't intended for you to receive ( I 'm over-simplifying ) - this law was a compromise between the telephone companies and everyone else - instead of requiring encryption for over the air stuff , they just made it illegal to do anything with the information intercepted - saving the telcos the cost having to implement encryption .
A number of congress droids who thought it was a good idea have been hoisted by their own petard when some of their in-the-clear cell phone conversations were recorded and surreptitiously released .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what is the big deal?
This data was sent out unencrypted from many transmitters all across the nation.
It would have been (and still is) very easy to intercept.
There is no data security.The telecommunications privacy act made it illegal to pass on any information recorded that wasn't intended for you to receive (I'm over-simplifying) - this law was a compromise between the telephone companies and everyone else - instead of requiring encryption for over the air stuff, they just made it illegal to do anything with the information intercepted - saving the telcos the cost having to implement encryption.
A number of congress droids who thought it was a good idea have been hoisted by their own petard when some of their in-the-clear cell phone conversations were recorded and surreptitiously released.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30314130</id>
	<title>What could an American politico do to WikiLeaks?</title>
	<author>RockDoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1259869800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously?<br>They could impound any servers in America, arrest, try, convict and kill any staff and/ or users. And for the rest of the world? Who gives a fuck ; they'd only have taken down one country's access to it's local WikiLeaks mirrors.</p><p>Anything worth seeing on the telly tonight?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously ? They could impound any servers in America , arrest , try , convict and kill any staff and/ or users .
And for the rest of the world ?
Who gives a fuck ; they 'd only have taken down one country 's access to it 's local WikiLeaks mirrors.Anything worth seeing on the telly tonight ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously?They could impound any servers in America, arrest, try, convict and kill any staff and/ or users.
And for the rest of the world?
Who gives a fuck ; they'd only have taken down one country's access to it's local WikiLeaks mirrors.Anything worth seeing on the telly tonight?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30284986</id>
	<title>Shallow Linking</title>
	<author>HaeMaker</author>
	<datestamp>1259690700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there some reason we can't link to the original content?  When I click on a link in an article about Wikileaks releasing pager messages, I assume it is going to Wikileaks.  As Slashdot, however, I get a link to a previous article that then has a link pointing to a Wired article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there some reason we ca n't link to the original content ?
When I click on a link in an article about Wikileaks releasing pager messages , I assume it is going to Wikileaks .
As Slashdot , however , I get a link to a previous article that then has a link pointing to a Wired article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there some reason we can't link to the original content?
When I click on a link in an article about Wikileaks releasing pager messages, I assume it is going to Wikileaks.
As Slashdot, however, I get a link to a previous article that then has a link pointing to a Wired article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282396</id>
	<title>Re:Waste of tax money</title>
	<author>FatherDale</author>
	<datestamp>1259678820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>THIS is what I was wondering about -- just exactly what does he think he can do about a foreign web site, other than inveigh mightily against it? Demagogue....</htmltext>
<tokenext>THIS is what I was wondering about -- just exactly what does he think he can do about a foreign web site , other than inveigh mightily against it ?
Demagogue... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>THIS is what I was wondering about -- just exactly what does he think he can do about a foreign web site, other than inveigh mightily against it?
Demagogue....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282386</id>
	<title>Re:Second Flamebait</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1259678760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So in other words, Congressman King is a supporter of a known terrorist organization (the IRA). So why isn't he in Gitmo instead of in Congress? Oh, right. He was supporting a Christian terrorist organization, not a Muslim one.</p><p>That said, your last line is an uncalled-for expression of bigotry against all Irish Catholics (to be clear, I'm neither Irish nor Catholic). Among other things, those most sympathetic to radical Christianity in the US tend to be Protestant fundamentalists, whereas the modern-day Catholic Church (particularly when John Paul II was in charge) is a lot more friendly towards non-Christian faiths.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So in other words , Congressman King is a supporter of a known terrorist organization ( the IRA ) .
So why is n't he in Gitmo instead of in Congress ?
Oh , right .
He was supporting a Christian terrorist organization , not a Muslim one.That said , your last line is an uncalled-for expression of bigotry against all Irish Catholics ( to be clear , I 'm neither Irish nor Catholic ) .
Among other things , those most sympathetic to radical Christianity in the US tend to be Protestant fundamentalists , whereas the modern-day Catholic Church ( particularly when John Paul II was in charge ) is a lot more friendly towards non-Christian faiths .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So in other words, Congressman King is a supporter of a known terrorist organization (the IRA).
So why isn't he in Gitmo instead of in Congress?
Oh, right.
He was supporting a Christian terrorist organization, not a Muslim one.That said, your last line is an uncalled-for expression of bigotry against all Irish Catholics (to be clear, I'm neither Irish nor Catholic).
Among other things, those most sympathetic to radical Christianity in the US tend to be Protestant fundamentalists, whereas the modern-day Catholic Church (particularly when John Paul II was in charge) is a lot more friendly towards non-Christian faiths.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282142</id>
	<title>"Raises security issues"?</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1259677140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As pager traffic is totally unencrypted, it's not a surprise that someone might be intercepting them. Especially on Wall Street, like the article states, because it's high valued information. Of course, pagers are pretty much used only in USA... phone/sms traffic elsewhere is better encrypted.</p><p>So will government understand that all communications over the Internet too (browsing, email, im) have to be changed over SSL? Or will they do the normal thing; ignore the problem and just arrest and sue the guy who was intercepting that traffic and/or wikileaks because <i>they're</i> supposedly risk to security, along with demanding more government regulation on the Internet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As pager traffic is totally unencrypted , it 's not a surprise that someone might be intercepting them .
Especially on Wall Street , like the article states , because it 's high valued information .
Of course , pagers are pretty much used only in USA... phone/sms traffic elsewhere is better encrypted.So will government understand that all communications over the Internet too ( browsing , email , im ) have to be changed over SSL ?
Or will they do the normal thing ; ignore the problem and just arrest and sue the guy who was intercepting that traffic and/or wikileaks because they 're supposedly risk to security , along with demanding more government regulation on the Internet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As pager traffic is totally unencrypted, it's not a surprise that someone might be intercepting them.
Especially on Wall Street, like the article states, because it's high valued information.
Of course, pagers are pretty much used only in USA... phone/sms traffic elsewhere is better encrypted.So will government understand that all communications over the Internet too (browsing, email, im) have to be changed over SSL?
Or will they do the normal thing; ignore the problem and just arrest and sue the guy who was intercepting that traffic and/or wikileaks because they're supposedly risk to security, along with demanding more government regulation on the Internet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282282</id>
	<title>Waste of tax money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259678100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>What will his staff do, read the Wikipedia page about Wikileaks and report back? With senators having so much free time and resources, it is little wonder that US is facing a deficit in the small trillions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What will his staff do , read the Wikipedia page about Wikileaks and report back ?
With senators having so much free time and resources , it is little wonder that US is facing a deficit in the small trillions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What will his staff do, read the Wikipedia page about Wikileaks and report back?
With senators having so much free time and resources, it is little wonder that US is facing a deficit in the small trillions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30283996</id>
	<title>Re:Second Flamebait</title>
	<author>wtbname</author>
	<datestamp>1259686440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You might have point thelsovist, but a word of caution:</p><p>kdawson has been known to make inflammatory and unpopular statements.</p><p>For what it's worth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You might have point thelsovist , but a word of caution : kdawson has been known to make inflammatory and unpopular statements.For what it 's worth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might have point thelsovist, but a word of caution:kdawson has been known to make inflammatory and unpopular statements.For what it's worth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282524</id>
	<title>cleartext unencrypted nation-wide traffic</title>
	<author>mwilliamson</author>
	<datestamp>1259679420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>So what is the big deal?  This data was sent out unencrypted from many transmitters all across the nation.  It would have been (and still is) very easy to intercept.  There is no data security.  Those considering it a secure medium have simply been mislead.  Congress, as a whole, is rather ignorant of these technical concepts.

There are programs that use a soundcard for data capture, but for best results make sure and use the receiver's discriminator output, not the filtered audio out.  Google for "POCSAG and FLEX decoding" for all the goodies and software you need to do your own intercepts.

-Michael</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what is the big deal ?
This data was sent out unencrypted from many transmitters all across the nation .
It would have been ( and still is ) very easy to intercept .
There is no data security .
Those considering it a secure medium have simply been mislead .
Congress , as a whole , is rather ignorant of these technical concepts .
There are programs that use a soundcard for data capture , but for best results make sure and use the receiver 's discriminator output , not the filtered audio out .
Google for " POCSAG and FLEX decoding " for all the goodies and software you need to do your own intercepts .
-Michael</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what is the big deal?
This data was sent out unencrypted from many transmitters all across the nation.
It would have been (and still is) very easy to intercept.
There is no data security.
Those considering it a secure medium have simply been mislead.
Congress, as a whole, is rather ignorant of these technical concepts.
There are programs that use a soundcard for data capture, but for best results make sure and use the receiver's discriminator output, not the filtered audio out.
Google for "POCSAG and FLEX decoding" for all the goodies and software you need to do your own intercepts.
-Michael</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30284544</id>
	<title>Re:Waste of tax money</title>
	<author>tw45</author>
	<datestamp>1259688780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>He's a congressman not a senator. But there are alot more of those<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's a congressman not a senator .
But there are alot more of those : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's a congressman not a senator.
But there are alot more of those :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30292780</id>
	<title>Well lookie here...</title>
	<author>Datamonstar</author>
	<datestamp>1259682300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I finally got around to reading some of these and the first link I click on about halfway down is one of our boxes sending an ticket notification. heh. What a coincidence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I finally got around to reading some of these and the first link I click on about halfway down is one of our boxes sending an ticket notification .
heh. What a coincidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I finally got around to reading some of these and the first link I click on about halfway down is one of our boxes sending an ticket notification.
heh. What a coincidence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282402</id>
	<title>Re:Second Flamebait</title>
	<author>RobotRunAmok</author>
	<datestamp>1259678880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>boozed-up hicks and Micks</i></p><p>Typical classist/racist, masquerading as a "progressive."  It's the knee-jerk anti-religion fundies such as you who empower King, not his "blue collar" base.</p><p>Keep up the good work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>boozed-up hicks and MicksTypical classist/racist , masquerading as a " progressive .
" It 's the knee-jerk anti-religion fundies such as you who empower King , not his " blue collar " base.Keep up the good work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>boozed-up hicks and MicksTypical classist/racist, masquerading as a "progressive.
"  It's the knee-jerk anti-religion fundies such as you who empower King, not his "blue collar" base.Keep up the good work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30284214</id>
	<title>THIS STORY IS FALSE</title>
	<author>Dreadneck</author>
	<datestamp>1259687340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just spoke with Congressman King's office and they were taken by surprise when I asked them about the Wikileaks probe.  They said the congressman is NOT probing wikileaks.  I gave them the url to the Newsday article and was told that the Rep. King's office will be working to sort out the matter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just spoke with Congressman King 's office and they were taken by surprise when I asked them about the Wikileaks probe .
They said the congressman is NOT probing wikileaks .
I gave them the url to the Newsday article and was told that the Rep. King 's office will be working to sort out the matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just spoke with Congressman King's office and they were taken by surprise when I asked them about the Wikileaks probe.
They said the congressman is NOT probing wikileaks.
I gave them the url to the Newsday article and was told that the Rep. King's office will be working to sort out the matter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282336</id>
	<title>Re:Second Flamebait</title>
	<author>theIsovist</author>
	<datestamp>1259678460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I don't disagree he's a bigot, you do realize that your post is just as bigotted as statement, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I do n't disagree he 's a bigot , you do realize that your post is just as bigotted as statement , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I don't disagree he's a bigot, you do realize that your post is just as bigotted as statement, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282704</id>
	<title>Re:Waste of tax money</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1259680440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Saddam Hussein is dictator of Iraq. The US can't do shit about him.</p><p>Oh wait...</p></div><p>Yeah, but he had weapons of mass...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... oh, right you are. Carry on.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Saddam Hussein is dictator of Iraq .
The US ca n't do shit about him.Oh wait...Yeah , but he had weapons of mass... ... oh , right you are .
Carry on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saddam Hussein is dictator of Iraq.
The US can't do shit about him.Oh wait...Yeah, but he had weapons of mass... ... oh, right you are.
Carry on.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30283038</id>
	<title>Okay lets address these "Unpopular statements."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259682300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, first, kdawson, you are an idiot.  Posting something to an article stating that this politician has made "unpopular statements" either means you are trying to show your support for Congressman King, your resentment of him and subsequent setup for bashing, or you are simply and opaquely trying to stir up a hornet's nest for inflamatory comments, and therefore hits.  I personally think it's the third option as it's been this way for a while around slashdot.  In terms of reporting, there is a way to make light of his prior comments but that's not the way to do it in a journalistically responsible way.  Others may say these comments are irrelevant, but in terms of neutral reporting, while you might think they are incendiary, a responsible journalist does have a duty to show a pattern of political behavior, and in this case it could simply be creating targets to stir up controversy and get media time, and therefore dollars.  By pointing out the unpopular comments it's detracting from the wikileaks article.  Way to go, you get the skippy the pinhead award for the day kdawson.</p><p>Second, I personally think this congressman king, from the videos, is also an idiot with a severe case of foot in mouth disease.  It's interesting that people show support for the Michael Jackson video but completely blow by the "too many mosques" video.  Obviously the guy has some issues.  The guy was trying to show his "tough on terrorism" stance and opened his mouth and out came some anti-moslem bile which his personal aid tried to step on since he knew his congressman had just fucked up.  But then he shovels it out nice and deep in the MJ video.  I agree with the idea that MJ coverage when he died was overblown, but in saying so, the guy called MJ a low life and a pedophile.  Lets get one thing straight, as much as I might have my suspicions, that has never been proven.  This was political commentary by a public official, not satire, so Letterman making a joke on late night is completely different than this.  The guy is trying to say "hey, lets shine the light on policeman and firefighters and not MJ."  I can get behind it, but it's how he says it, by viciously attacking Michael is just stupid and low.  In fact if Jackson was alive, I think there's a chance it might be slander (IANAL).</p><p>I know nothing else about this guy, so he's no Ted Stevens or John Ensign, but he's not a particularly bright politician if you ask me, unless of course his racist and insulting comments are the type of comments that get him elected in his district.  I just know he needs to take a few sensitivity courses so he can stop chewing on his size 11s when trying to make what otherwise might be a reasonable point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , first , kdawson , you are an idiot .
Posting something to an article stating that this politician has made " unpopular statements " either means you are trying to show your support for Congressman King , your resentment of him and subsequent setup for bashing , or you are simply and opaquely trying to stir up a hornet 's nest for inflamatory comments , and therefore hits .
I personally think it 's the third option as it 's been this way for a while around slashdot .
In terms of reporting , there is a way to make light of his prior comments but that 's not the way to do it in a journalistically responsible way .
Others may say these comments are irrelevant , but in terms of neutral reporting , while you might think they are incendiary , a responsible journalist does have a duty to show a pattern of political behavior , and in this case it could simply be creating targets to stir up controversy and get media time , and therefore dollars .
By pointing out the unpopular comments it 's detracting from the wikileaks article .
Way to go , you get the skippy the pinhead award for the day kdawson.Second , I personally think this congressman king , from the videos , is also an idiot with a severe case of foot in mouth disease .
It 's interesting that people show support for the Michael Jackson video but completely blow by the " too many mosques " video .
Obviously the guy has some issues .
The guy was trying to show his " tough on terrorism " stance and opened his mouth and out came some anti-moslem bile which his personal aid tried to step on since he knew his congressman had just fucked up .
But then he shovels it out nice and deep in the MJ video .
I agree with the idea that MJ coverage when he died was overblown , but in saying so , the guy called MJ a low life and a pedophile .
Lets get one thing straight , as much as I might have my suspicions , that has never been proven .
This was political commentary by a public official , not satire , so Letterman making a joke on late night is completely different than this .
The guy is trying to say " hey , lets shine the light on policeman and firefighters and not MJ .
" I can get behind it , but it 's how he says it , by viciously attacking Michael is just stupid and low .
In fact if Jackson was alive , I think there 's a chance it might be slander ( IANAL ) .I know nothing else about this guy , so he 's no Ted Stevens or John Ensign , but he 's not a particularly bright politician if you ask me , unless of course his racist and insulting comments are the type of comments that get him elected in his district .
I just know he needs to take a few sensitivity courses so he can stop chewing on his size 11s when trying to make what otherwise might be a reasonable point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, first, kdawson, you are an idiot.
Posting something to an article stating that this politician has made "unpopular statements" either means you are trying to show your support for Congressman King, your resentment of him and subsequent setup for bashing, or you are simply and opaquely trying to stir up a hornet's nest for inflamatory comments, and therefore hits.
I personally think it's the third option as it's been this way for a while around slashdot.
In terms of reporting, there is a way to make light of his prior comments but that's not the way to do it in a journalistically responsible way.
Others may say these comments are irrelevant, but in terms of neutral reporting, while you might think they are incendiary, a responsible journalist does have a duty to show a pattern of political behavior, and in this case it could simply be creating targets to stir up controversy and get media time, and therefore dollars.
By pointing out the unpopular comments it's detracting from the wikileaks article.
Way to go, you get the skippy the pinhead award for the day kdawson.Second, I personally think this congressman king, from the videos, is also an idiot with a severe case of foot in mouth disease.
It's interesting that people show support for the Michael Jackson video but completely blow by the "too many mosques" video.
Obviously the guy has some issues.
The guy was trying to show his "tough on terrorism" stance and opened his mouth and out came some anti-moslem bile which his personal aid tried to step on since he knew his congressman had just fucked up.
But then he shovels it out nice and deep in the MJ video.
I agree with the idea that MJ coverage when he died was overblown, but in saying so, the guy called MJ a low life and a pedophile.
Lets get one thing straight, as much as I might have my suspicions, that has never been proven.
This was political commentary by a public official, not satire, so Letterman making a joke on late night is completely different than this.
The guy is trying to say "hey, lets shine the light on policeman and firefighters and not MJ.
"  I can get behind it, but it's how he says it, by viciously attacking Michael is just stupid and low.
In fact if Jackson was alive, I think there's a chance it might be slander (IANAL).I know nothing else about this guy, so he's no Ted Stevens or John Ensign, but he's not a particularly bright politician if you ask me, unless of course his racist and insulting comments are the type of comments that get him elected in his district.
I just know he needs to take a few sensitivity courses so he can stop chewing on his size 11s when trying to make what otherwise might be a reasonable point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282508</id>
	<title>Re:Waste of tax money</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259679360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Wikileaks is hosted by a Swedish company. The US can't do shit about it</i></p><p>Saddam Hussein is dictator of Iraq. The US can't do shit about him.</p><p>Oh wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikileaks is hosted by a Swedish company .
The US ca n't do shit about itSaddam Hussein is dictator of Iraq .
The US ca n't do shit about him.Oh wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikileaks is hosted by a Swedish company.
The US can't do shit about itSaddam Hussein is dictator of Iraq.
The US can't do shit about him.Oh wait...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30284448</id>
	<title>Re:Waste of tax money</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1259688420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What will his staff do, read the Wikipedia page about Wikileaks and report back?</p></div><p>No, they will consult with their friendly lobbyists and reprint whatever they provide.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What will his staff do , read the Wikipedia page about Wikileaks and report back ? No , they will consult with their friendly lobbyists and reprint whatever they provide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What will his staff do, read the Wikipedia page about Wikileaks and report back?No, they will consult with their friendly lobbyists and reprint whatever they provide.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282934</id>
	<title>Re:Waste of tax money</title>
	<author>V!NCENT</author>
	<datestamp>1259681880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about the Pirate Bay? Ah yes...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the Pirate Bay ?
Ah yes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the Pirate Bay?
Ah yes...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282216</id>
	<title>Vandal penises to probe wiki admins asses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259677740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This for bastard admins who are fat and have no life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This for bastard admins who are fat and have no life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This for bastard admins who are fat and have no life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0126220_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0126220_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0126220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0126220_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0126220_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30283996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0126220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30284532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0126220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0126220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30283112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0126220_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0126220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0126220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0126220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0126220_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30285378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30283038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0126220_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30287556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0126220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0126220_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0126220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0126220_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0126220_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0126220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30284544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0126220_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0126220_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0126220_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30285386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30283038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0126220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30284448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0126220_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30283338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_0126220.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30283112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30284532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_0126220.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30283038
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30285378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30285386
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_0126220.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282336
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282662
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30283996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282746
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_0126220.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282354
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282934
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282508
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282704
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282600
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30284544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30283338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30287556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30284448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282442
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_0126220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30282142
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_0126220.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0126220.30284214
</commentlist>
</conversation>
