<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_07_1417209</id>
	<title>Ambassador Claims ACTA Secrecy Necessary</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1260199560000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.eff.org/support" rel="nofollow">I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property</a> writes <i>"According to Ambassador Ron Kirk, the head of US Trade Representatives, the <a href="http://keionline.org/node/706">secrecy around the ACTA copyright treaty</a> is necessary because without that secrecy, people would be 'walking away from the table.'  If you don't remember, that treaty is the one where leaks indicate that it may contain all sorts of provisions for online copyright enforcement, like a global DMCA with takedown and anti-circumvention restrictions, three-strikes laws to terminate offending internet connections, and copyright cops.  FOIA requests for the treaty text have been rebuffed over alleged 'national security' concerns. One can only hope that what he has said is true and that sites like Wikileaks will help tear down the veil of secrecy behind which they're negotiating our future."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>I Do n't Believe in Imaginary Property writes " According to Ambassador Ron Kirk , the head of US Trade Representatives , the secrecy around the ACTA copyright treaty is necessary because without that secrecy , people would be 'walking away from the table .
' If you do n't remember , that treaty is the one where leaks indicate that it may contain all sorts of provisions for online copyright enforcement , like a global DMCA with takedown and anti-circumvention restrictions , three-strikes laws to terminate offending internet connections , and copyright cops .
FOIA requests for the treaty text have been rebuffed over alleged 'national security ' concerns .
One can only hope that what he has said is true and that sites like Wikileaks will help tear down the veil of secrecy behind which they 're negotiating our future .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "According to Ambassador Ron Kirk, the head of US Trade Representatives, the secrecy around the ACTA copyright treaty is necessary because without that secrecy, people would be 'walking away from the table.
'  If you don't remember, that treaty is the one where leaks indicate that it may contain all sorts of provisions for online copyright enforcement, like a global DMCA with takedown and anti-circumvention restrictions, three-strikes laws to terminate offending internet connections, and copyright cops.
FOIA requests for the treaty text have been rebuffed over alleged 'national security' concerns.
One can only hope that what he has said is true and that sites like Wikileaks will help tear down the veil of secrecy behind which they're negotiating our future.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353550</id>
	<title>Re:The question is...</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1260204000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reasons are held secret for reasons of national security. Doh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reasons are held secret for reasons of national security .
Doh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reasons are held secret for reasons of national security.
Doh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353604</id>
	<title>Hard to see the redeeming qualities</title>
	<author>locallyunscene</author>
	<datestamp>1260204180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>On one hand, I see why a treaty <i>like</i> ACTA might be desirable to establish a common copyright law across all nations. Especially given how much copyright infringement is going on between nations and how hard it is to enforce laws nationally when the economy and the access is global. I can also understand that they may not want to disclose the nitty-gritty of the treaty until they have a lot of the kinks worked out so that parts that will get changed aren't attacked and destroy hope for the treaty ever being passed in any form.
<br> <br>
However, everything I've heard about it, admittedly "leaked", is <i>terrible</i>. They're using the secrecy of the process to hide the severeness of the treaty rather than "working out the kinks". Also, the treaty seems very much focused on protecting America's corporate copyrighted interests rather than respecting the authors and the people who use the author's works. This is a huge opportunity to fix our system, but instead it's being used to make everyone else's more broken.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On one hand , I see why a treaty like ACTA might be desirable to establish a common copyright law across all nations .
Especially given how much copyright infringement is going on between nations and how hard it is to enforce laws nationally when the economy and the access is global .
I can also understand that they may not want to disclose the nitty-gritty of the treaty until they have a lot of the kinks worked out so that parts that will get changed are n't attacked and destroy hope for the treaty ever being passed in any form .
However , everything I 've heard about it , admittedly " leaked " , is terrible .
They 're using the secrecy of the process to hide the severeness of the treaty rather than " working out the kinks " .
Also , the treaty seems very much focused on protecting America 's corporate copyrighted interests rather than respecting the authors and the people who use the author 's works .
This is a huge opportunity to fix our system , but instead it 's being used to make everyone else 's more broken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On one hand, I see why a treaty like ACTA might be desirable to establish a common copyright law across all nations.
Especially given how much copyright infringement is going on between nations and how hard it is to enforce laws nationally when the economy and the access is global.
I can also understand that they may not want to disclose the nitty-gritty of the treaty until they have a lot of the kinks worked out so that parts that will get changed aren't attacked and destroy hope for the treaty ever being passed in any form.
However, everything I've heard about it, admittedly "leaked", is terrible.
They're using the secrecy of the process to hide the severeness of the treaty rather than "working out the kinks".
Also, the treaty seems very much focused on protecting America's corporate copyrighted interests rather than respecting the authors and the people who use the author's works.
This is a huge opportunity to fix our system, but instead it's being used to make everyone else's more broken.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30359000</id>
	<title>Easy Final Solution...</title>
	<author>ponraul</author>
	<datestamp>1260187320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. Release a fake treaty on the internets that contains outrageous provisions which would make things that common people do on a day-to-day basis criminal.
<br>
2. Bait fringe cable news outlets to the story.
<br>
3. Government officials refuse to comment.
<br>
4. The story gets the spin: "OMG ITZ TRUES. THEY WANT TO TAKE AWAY YOUR YOUTUBE AND FANFICTION.NET."
<br>
5.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
<br>
6. Profit</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Release a fake treaty on the internets that contains outrageous provisions which would make things that common people do on a day-to-day basis criminal .
2. Bait fringe cable news outlets to the story .
3. Government officials refuse to comment .
4. The story gets the spin : " OMG ITZ TRUES .
THEY WANT TO TAKE AWAY YOUR YOUTUBE AND FANFICTION.NET .
" 5 .
.. . 6 .
Profit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Release a fake treaty on the internets that contains outrageous provisions which would make things that common people do on a day-to-day basis criminal.
2. Bait fringe cable news outlets to the story.
3. Government officials refuse to comment.
4. The story gets the spin: "OMG ITZ TRUES.
THEY WANT TO TAKE AWAY YOUR YOUTUBE AND FANFICTION.NET.
"

5.
...

6.
Profit</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353468</id>
	<title>F*CKING BUSH!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260203520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll be glad when we have a new president!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll be glad when we have a new president !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll be glad when we have a new president!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354044</id>
	<title>Re:Down with the Government</title>
	<author>Angostura</author>
	<datestamp>1260206040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's get this into context:</p><blockquote><div><p>I only obey laws out of fear of punishment, not because I believe that such behaviors is correct and moral.</p></div></blockquote><p>Do you feel this about *all* laws? Including the ones prohibiting driving on the left and murdering people?</p><p>No? OK, so presumably you only feel this way about a proportion of laws. Of the thousands on the statute book, roughly how many do you only obey out of fear?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's get this into context : I only obey laws out of fear of punishment , not because I believe that such behaviors is correct and moral.Do you feel this about * all * laws ?
Including the ones prohibiting driving on the left and murdering people ? No ?
OK , so presumably you only feel this way about a proportion of laws .
Of the thousands on the statute book , roughly how many do you only obey out of fear ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's get this into context:I only obey laws out of fear of punishment, not because I believe that such behaviors is correct and moral.Do you feel this about *all* laws?
Including the ones prohibiting driving on the left and murdering people?No?
OK, so presumably you only feel this way about a proportion of laws.
Of the thousands on the statute book, roughly how many do you only obey out of fear?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353490</id>
	<title>What else scurries when the lights are turned on?</title>
	<author>tkrotchko</author>
	<datestamp>1260203640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If people will walk away from the table if they become associated with the effort, then what does it tell you about the effort?</p><p>It tells me that ACTA is something that companies want to increase their profits without the bad publicity of trying to throw their "customers" in jail.</p><p>Perhaps it's better if we stopped the charade here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If people will walk away from the table if they become associated with the effort , then what does it tell you about the effort ? It tells me that ACTA is something that companies want to increase their profits without the bad publicity of trying to throw their " customers " in jail.Perhaps it 's better if we stopped the charade here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If people will walk away from the table if they become associated with the effort, then what does it tell you about the effort?It tells me that ACTA is something that companies want to increase their profits without the bad publicity of trying to throw their "customers" in jail.Perhaps it's better if we stopped the charade here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353494</id>
	<title>Down with the Government</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260203640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am an American Citizen.  Not a taxpayer.  Not a consumer.  A citizen.</p><p>My government no longer has my consent to government.  I only obey laws out of fear of punishment, not because I believe that such behaviors is correct and moral.</p><p>I feel that those who represent us in this country have long ago forgotten the best interests of those they serve, the People, or more correctly, have just decided that it's more profitable serving Corporations and sacrificing essential freedoms for temporary security and monetary reward.</p><p>The only way this kind of stupidity and evil will end is with revolution.  From time to time the Tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants, or however the exact original goes.</p><p>The Government's only purpose is to serve the people, to do for them what they as individuals cannot do for themselves:  Infrastructure, Sanitation, Hospitals, and Emergency Services springing immediately to mind.</p><p>The Government of the United States has increasingly grown bloated, incompetent, and has increasingly sold out the rights of its Citizens to corporate interests.</p><p>We were once the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave.  Now we are the land of timid sheep, beholden to our corporate masters, constantly sacrificing our necessary freedoms to protect Children who would better be protected by their parents actually doing their job and parenting, and to protect us from Foreign threats caused by our own meddling in the affairs of other nations.</p><p>It's time to realize that the problem is not whether the politician in the White House is Black or White, Male or Female, Democrat or Republican or Independent.</p><p>The problem is that there is a <b>politician</b> in the White House, instead of a Citizen-Servant who is First Among Equals, not elevated to the status of Royalty.</p><p>We must abolish the Federal Government as it currently stands and return to the ideals of the Founding Fathers on which they attempted to create a nation:  The Inalienable Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.</p><p>No one should have the right to restrict my freedom to do as I wish so long as I do not materially harm another human being.</p><p>Down with the Tyrants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am an American Citizen .
Not a taxpayer .
Not a consumer .
A citizen.My government no longer has my consent to government .
I only obey laws out of fear of punishment , not because I believe that such behaviors is correct and moral.I feel that those who represent us in this country have long ago forgotten the best interests of those they serve , the People , or more correctly , have just decided that it 's more profitable serving Corporations and sacrificing essential freedoms for temporary security and monetary reward.The only way this kind of stupidity and evil will end is with revolution .
From time to time the Tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants , or however the exact original goes.The Government 's only purpose is to serve the people , to do for them what they as individuals can not do for themselves : Infrastructure , Sanitation , Hospitals , and Emergency Services springing immediately to mind.The Government of the United States has increasingly grown bloated , incompetent , and has increasingly sold out the rights of its Citizens to corporate interests.We were once the Land of the Free , Home of the Brave .
Now we are the land of timid sheep , beholden to our corporate masters , constantly sacrificing our necessary freedoms to protect Children who would better be protected by their parents actually doing their job and parenting , and to protect us from Foreign threats caused by our own meddling in the affairs of other nations.It 's time to realize that the problem is not whether the politician in the White House is Black or White , Male or Female , Democrat or Republican or Independent.The problem is that there is a politician in the White House , instead of a Citizen-Servant who is First Among Equals , not elevated to the status of Royalty.We must abolish the Federal Government as it currently stands and return to the ideals of the Founding Fathers on which they attempted to create a nation : The Inalienable Rights to Life , Liberty , and the Pursuit of Happiness.No one should have the right to restrict my freedom to do as I wish so long as I do not materially harm another human being.Down with the Tyrants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am an American Citizen.
Not a taxpayer.
Not a consumer.
A citizen.My government no longer has my consent to government.
I only obey laws out of fear of punishment, not because I believe that such behaviors is correct and moral.I feel that those who represent us in this country have long ago forgotten the best interests of those they serve, the People, or more correctly, have just decided that it's more profitable serving Corporations and sacrificing essential freedoms for temporary security and monetary reward.The only way this kind of stupidity and evil will end is with revolution.
From time to time the Tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants, or however the exact original goes.The Government's only purpose is to serve the people, to do for them what they as individuals cannot do for themselves:  Infrastructure, Sanitation, Hospitals, and Emergency Services springing immediately to mind.The Government of the United States has increasingly grown bloated, incompetent, and has increasingly sold out the rights of its Citizens to corporate interests.We were once the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave.
Now we are the land of timid sheep, beholden to our corporate masters, constantly sacrificing our necessary freedoms to protect Children who would better be protected by their parents actually doing their job and parenting, and to protect us from Foreign threats caused by our own meddling in the affairs of other nations.It's time to realize that the problem is not whether the politician in the White House is Black or White, Male or Female, Democrat or Republican or Independent.The problem is that there is a politician in the White House, instead of a Citizen-Servant who is First Among Equals, not elevated to the status of Royalty.We must abolish the Federal Government as it currently stands and return to the ideals of the Founding Fathers on which they attempted to create a nation:  The Inalienable Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.No one should have the right to restrict my freedom to do as I wish so long as I do not materially harm another human being.Down with the Tyrants.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353792</id>
	<title>Re:Down with the Government</title>
	<author>jockeys</author>
	<datestamp>1260205020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>fuck yeah.  That's the single most sensible post I've ever read on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</htmltext>
<tokenext>fuck yeah .
That 's the single most sensible post I 've ever read on / .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fuck yeah.
That's the single most sensible post I've ever read on /.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353846</id>
	<title>Re:Down with the Government</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1260205200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nobody will revolt as long as food, shelter, television and mind altering drugs are cheap and widely available. Even in places like Haiti, which has much worse conditions than the USA, no significant part of the population is revolting.</p><p>That being said, I'm skeptical that our new soviet planners in the Congress of Goldman Sachs can continue that happy situation indefinitely. Central economic planning tends to fail eventually.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody will revolt as long as food , shelter , television and mind altering drugs are cheap and widely available .
Even in places like Haiti , which has much worse conditions than the USA , no significant part of the population is revolting.That being said , I 'm skeptical that our new soviet planners in the Congress of Goldman Sachs can continue that happy situation indefinitely .
Central economic planning tends to fail eventually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody will revolt as long as food, shelter, television and mind altering drugs are cheap and widely available.
Even in places like Haiti, which has much worse conditions than the USA, no significant part of the population is revolting.That being said, I'm skeptical that our new soviet planners in the Congress of Goldman Sachs can continue that happy situation indefinitely.
Central economic planning tends to fail eventually.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30357436</id>
	<title>Re:The question is...</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1260178680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing is, if they're poor enough negotiators that they don't realize that the chest thumping "I will never approve X" will cripple their ability to negotiate, then they shouldn't be there at all. I don't want an idiot negotiating for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is , if they 're poor enough negotiators that they do n't realize that the chest thumping " I will never approve X " will cripple their ability to negotiate , then they should n't be there at all .
I do n't want an idiot negotiating for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is, if they're poor enough negotiators that they don't realize that the chest thumping "I will never approve X" will cripple their ability to negotiate, then they shouldn't be there at all.
I don't want an idiot negotiating for me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30355042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30355050</id>
	<title>Re:Down with the Government</title>
	<author>david.given</author>
	<datestamp>1260210060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I feel that those who represent us in this country have long ago forgotten the best interests of those they serve, the People, or more correctly, have just decided that it's more profitable serving Corporations and sacrificing essential freedoms for temporary security and monetary reward.</p></div><p>The government is not some strange alien entity living in Washington. The government is made of people.

</p><p>Corporations are not faceless office blocks full of hive drones. Corporations are made of people.

</p><p>There is no <em>them</em> vs. <i>us</i>. There's just <i>us</i>. If you believe otherwise, then you have missed what democracy is all about.

</p><p>You have a problem with the way the government behaves? Well, you elected them, which makes it your fault. You participated in the democratic process, which means that 1/500e6th of the government's behaviour is your responsibility. You don't like the country largely being run by corporations? Well, you chose for the economy to work in such a way that 1000 people working together have more than 1000 times the influence of one person working alone. It's easy to whine about the Man keeping you down. It's less easy to realise that you <i>are</i> the Man.

</p><p>You live in a democracy. You <i>chose</i> your government. In about three years you'll have a chance to choose again.

</p><p>Choose differently.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel that those who represent us in this country have long ago forgotten the best interests of those they serve , the People , or more correctly , have just decided that it 's more profitable serving Corporations and sacrificing essential freedoms for temporary security and monetary reward.The government is not some strange alien entity living in Washington .
The government is made of people .
Corporations are not faceless office blocks full of hive drones .
Corporations are made of people .
There is no them vs. us. There 's just us .
If you believe otherwise , then you have missed what democracy is all about .
You have a problem with the way the government behaves ?
Well , you elected them , which makes it your fault .
You participated in the democratic process , which means that 1/500e6th of the government 's behaviour is your responsibility .
You do n't like the country largely being run by corporations ?
Well , you chose for the economy to work in such a way that 1000 people working together have more than 1000 times the influence of one person working alone .
It 's easy to whine about the Man keeping you down .
It 's less easy to realise that you are the Man .
You live in a democracy .
You chose your government .
In about three years you 'll have a chance to choose again .
Choose differently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel that those who represent us in this country have long ago forgotten the best interests of those they serve, the People, or more correctly, have just decided that it's more profitable serving Corporations and sacrificing essential freedoms for temporary security and monetary reward.The government is not some strange alien entity living in Washington.
The government is made of people.
Corporations are not faceless office blocks full of hive drones.
Corporations are made of people.
There is no them vs. us. There's just us.
If you believe otherwise, then you have missed what democracy is all about.
You have a problem with the way the government behaves?
Well, you elected them, which makes it your fault.
You participated in the democratic process, which means that 1/500e6th of the government's behaviour is your responsibility.
You don't like the country largely being run by corporations?
Well, you chose for the economy to work in such a way that 1000 people working together have more than 1000 times the influence of one person working alone.
It's easy to whine about the Man keeping you down.
It's less easy to realise that you are the Man.
You live in a democracy.
You chose your government.
In about three years you'll have a chance to choose again.
Choose differently.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30358040</id>
	<title>chad@DCFinc.com</title>
	<author>FreeBSD evangelist</author>
	<datestamp>1260182100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>...because without that secrecy, people would be "walking away from the table."</i> <p>And that's a bad thing, how?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...because without that secrecy , people would be " walking away from the table .
" And that 's a bad thing , how ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...because without that secrecy, people would be "walking away from the table.
" And that's a bad thing, how?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30361228</id>
	<title>Re:F*CKING BUSH!!!</title>
	<author>Kalriath</author>
	<datestamp>1260203280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ron Paul would have been the downfall of your country (and most of the rest of the world, while he's at it).</p><p>The guy's a nut.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ron Paul would have been the downfall of your country ( and most of the rest of the world , while he 's at it ) .The guy 's a nut .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ron Paul would have been the downfall of your country (and most of the rest of the world, while he's at it).The guy's a nut.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30356772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30361984</id>
	<title>What we've become</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260210240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>No one can possibly doubt that America is now a fascist country.<br>
Be fine "national security" as "protecting corporate profits".
<p>
That is the very definition of fascism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one can possibly doubt that America is now a fascist country .
Be fine " national security " as " protecting corporate profits " .
That is the very definition of fascism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one can possibly doubt that America is now a fascist country.
Be fine "national security" as "protecting corporate profits".
That is the very definition of fascism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30356772</id>
	<title>Re:F*CKING BUSH!!!</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1260218580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dear US of A,<br> <br>Ron Paul 2008!<br> <br>Sincerely,<br> <br>The reason you have a party on 4th July.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear US of A , Ron Paul 2008 !
Sincerely , The reason you have a party on 4th July .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear US of A, Ron Paul 2008!
Sincerely, The reason you have a party on 4th July.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30370238</id>
	<title>Re:The question is...</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1260266580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This means that negotiations between national entities are far more complex: you know you can't be seen talking to the enemy, but at the same, you have to find a way to talk anyway.</p></div><p>Why can't you be seen talking to the enemy? The enemy is about the most important person to talk to; if you can work out your differences, you're fixing a lot of problems.</p><p>I know that's not how international diplomats think, but they're wrong. I was seriously pissed after Hamas got elected in Palestine. Not just because Hamas got elected (though that wasn't exactly a glorious moment either), but much more so because everybody refused to talk to them, withdrew diplomats and stuff like that. A group that's always been part of the problem suddenly gets political responsibility (which also means the political arm gets a lot more power relative to the militant arm), and becomes an partner in negotiations. It's the best opportunity you're ever going to get to really talk (and thereby influence) them, and that's exactly the kind of opportunity you need to seize, rather than throw away.</p><p>Sorry for that rant. I don't want to turn this into a Middle-East flamewar, but this was the most flagrant example I could think of where every politician and diplomat in the world did the wrong thing. Politicians who think it's good politics not to talk to people you disagree with, need to get shot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This means that negotiations between national entities are far more complex : you know you ca n't be seen talking to the enemy , but at the same , you have to find a way to talk anyway.Why ca n't you be seen talking to the enemy ?
The enemy is about the most important person to talk to ; if you can work out your differences , you 're fixing a lot of problems.I know that 's not how international diplomats think , but they 're wrong .
I was seriously pissed after Hamas got elected in Palestine .
Not just because Hamas got elected ( though that was n't exactly a glorious moment either ) , but much more so because everybody refused to talk to them , withdrew diplomats and stuff like that .
A group that 's always been part of the problem suddenly gets political responsibility ( which also means the political arm gets a lot more power relative to the militant arm ) , and becomes an partner in negotiations .
It 's the best opportunity you 're ever going to get to really talk ( and thereby influence ) them , and that 's exactly the kind of opportunity you need to seize , rather than throw away.Sorry for that rant .
I do n't want to turn this into a Middle-East flamewar , but this was the most flagrant example I could think of where every politician and diplomat in the world did the wrong thing .
Politicians who think it 's good politics not to talk to people you disagree with , need to get shot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This means that negotiations between national entities are far more complex: you know you can't be seen talking to the enemy, but at the same, you have to find a way to talk anyway.Why can't you be seen talking to the enemy?
The enemy is about the most important person to talk to; if you can work out your differences, you're fixing a lot of problems.I know that's not how international diplomats think, but they're wrong.
I was seriously pissed after Hamas got elected in Palestine.
Not just because Hamas got elected (though that wasn't exactly a glorious moment either), but much more so because everybody refused to talk to them, withdrew diplomats and stuff like that.
A group that's always been part of the problem suddenly gets political responsibility (which also means the political arm gets a lot more power relative to the militant arm), and becomes an partner in negotiations.
It's the best opportunity you're ever going to get to really talk (and thereby influence) them, and that's exactly the kind of opportunity you need to seize, rather than throw away.Sorry for that rant.
I don't want to turn this into a Middle-East flamewar, but this was the most flagrant example I could think of where every politician and diplomat in the world did the wrong thing.
Politicians who think it's good politics not to talk to people you disagree with, need to get shot.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30355482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353802</id>
	<title>Re:The question is...</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1260205020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, since we're talking about the entertainment industry, it's obviously National Security <b>theater</b>.</p><p>In other words, it's bullshit spouted by pathological liars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , since we 're talking about the entertainment industry , it 's obviously National Security theater.In other words , it 's bullshit spouted by pathological liars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, since we're talking about the entertainment industry, it's obviously National Security theater.In other words, it's bullshit spouted by pathological liars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30356552</id>
	<title>Re:The question is...</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1260217500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the process can't hold up to scrutiny then it doesn't need to take place at all.</p></div><p>I'm not sure that I would take it that far; there are some cases where the secrecy argument makes more sense. For example, when the stakes are much higher, like an armistice to stop fighting in an ongoing war. However, it is probably safe to say that copyrights do not rise to the necessary level of urgency to justify the amount of secrecy this deal is getting. This is basically about money, nobody is going to lose their life because a copyright was infringed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the process ca n't hold up to scrutiny then it does n't need to take place at all.I 'm not sure that I would take it that far ; there are some cases where the secrecy argument makes more sense .
For example , when the stakes are much higher , like an armistice to stop fighting in an ongoing war .
However , it is probably safe to say that copyrights do not rise to the necessary level of urgency to justify the amount of secrecy this deal is getting .
This is basically about money , nobody is going to lose their life because a copyright was infringed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the process can't hold up to scrutiny then it doesn't need to take place at all.I'm not sure that I would take it that far; there are some cases where the secrecy argument makes more sense.
For example, when the stakes are much higher, like an armistice to stop fighting in an ongoing war.
However, it is probably safe to say that copyrights do not rise to the necessary level of urgency to justify the amount of secrecy this deal is getting.
This is basically about money, nobody is going to lose their life because a copyright was infringed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353952</id>
	<title>Re:Down with the Government</title>
	<author>savanik</author>
	<datestamp>1260205620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it's true you feel that way, then stop giving the government your money. It's one thing to say that the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots et al. It's another to actually start doing it. Civil disobedience is a form of revolution - and part of civil disobedience is knowing the consequences of it and to willingly suffer them in the name of your principles.</p><p>Besides, if enough people refuse to pay their taxes at once due to a lack of faith in the government, the government won't have enough places to put them.</p><p>That aside - while I agree that our government is bloated, it's not actually<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/that/ incompetent, compared to the average corporate environment. I'd say they're pretty average, and quite capable of providing the infrastructure support and freedoms I require for my life. While I grumble about the amount of taxes I pay and believe we should pay less, it's hardly disenfranchising my citizenship at the moment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's true you feel that way , then stop giving the government your money .
It 's one thing to say that the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots et al .
It 's another to actually start doing it .
Civil disobedience is a form of revolution - and part of civil disobedience is knowing the consequences of it and to willingly suffer them in the name of your principles.Besides , if enough people refuse to pay their taxes at once due to a lack of faith in the government , the government wo n't have enough places to put them.That aside - while I agree that our government is bloated , it 's not actually /that/ incompetent , compared to the average corporate environment .
I 'd say they 're pretty average , and quite capable of providing the infrastructure support and freedoms I require for my life .
While I grumble about the amount of taxes I pay and believe we should pay less , it 's hardly disenfranchising my citizenship at the moment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's true you feel that way, then stop giving the government your money.
It's one thing to say that the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots et al.
It's another to actually start doing it.
Civil disobedience is a form of revolution - and part of civil disobedience is knowing the consequences of it and to willingly suffer them in the name of your principles.Besides, if enough people refuse to pay their taxes at once due to a lack of faith in the government, the government won't have enough places to put them.That aside - while I agree that our government is bloated, it's not actually /that/ incompetent, compared to the average corporate environment.
I'd say they're pretty average, and quite capable of providing the infrastructure support and freedoms I require for my life.
While I grumble about the amount of taxes I pay and believe we should pay less, it's hardly disenfranchising my citizenship at the moment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30358872</id>
	<title>Yeah duh...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260186540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I were busy giving away the rights of citizens I'm supposed to represent I would think twice before continuing with that to avoid an untimely death.</p><p>Lets start a revolution! Tear down the powers that be!</p><p>Or we could request a debate on this issue...</p><p>Or toiletpaper their houses...</p><p>Maybe I'll just write a polite, angrily worded letter filled with contempt. That will convice them, right?</p><p>Man, what's happened to us?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I were busy giving away the rights of citizens I 'm supposed to represent I would think twice before continuing with that to avoid an untimely death.Lets start a revolution !
Tear down the powers that be ! Or we could request a debate on this issue...Or toiletpaper their houses...Maybe I 'll just write a polite , angrily worded letter filled with contempt .
That will convice them , right ? Man , what 's happened to us ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I were busy giving away the rights of citizens I'm supposed to represent I would think twice before continuing with that to avoid an untimely death.Lets start a revolution!
Tear down the powers that be!Or we could request a debate on this issue...Or toiletpaper their houses...Maybe I'll just write a polite, angrily worded letter filled with contempt.
That will convice them, right?Man, what's happened to us?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30357378</id>
	<title>Re:The question is...</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1260178440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since they supposedly represent the people, there's no need to hide frank discussion UNLESS that discussion is inconsistent with the representation they are supposed to be doing.</p><p>That is, if the people found out, they'd be tarred, feathered, and then run out of town, so they want it to be hush hush.</p><p>If I choose to represent someone, I shouldn't have a problem with that someone hearing everything I have said in that capacity. Why should I if I'm doing my job and representing them? It's nothing they wouldn't have said themselves!</p><p>If that's not the case here, anything they conspire to produce, hidden away in the proverbial smoke filled room, should be shredded immediately for the good of all.</p><p>It's no wonder there are so many conspiracy nuts out there. It's because so many in government act JUST LIKE the stereotypical conspirators they fear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since they supposedly represent the people , there 's no need to hide frank discussion UNLESS that discussion is inconsistent with the representation they are supposed to be doing.That is , if the people found out , they 'd be tarred , feathered , and then run out of town , so they want it to be hush hush.If I choose to represent someone , I should n't have a problem with that someone hearing everything I have said in that capacity .
Why should I if I 'm doing my job and representing them ?
It 's nothing they would n't have said themselves ! If that 's not the case here , anything they conspire to produce , hidden away in the proverbial smoke filled room , should be shredded immediately for the good of all.It 's no wonder there are so many conspiracy nuts out there .
It 's because so many in government act JUST LIKE the stereotypical conspirators they fear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since they supposedly represent the people, there's no need to hide frank discussion UNLESS that discussion is inconsistent with the representation they are supposed to be doing.That is, if the people found out, they'd be tarred, feathered, and then run out of town, so they want it to be hush hush.If I choose to represent someone, I shouldn't have a problem with that someone hearing everything I have said in that capacity.
Why should I if I'm doing my job and representing them?
It's nothing they wouldn't have said themselves!If that's not the case here, anything they conspire to produce, hidden away in the proverbial smoke filled room, should be shredded immediately for the good of all.It's no wonder there are so many conspiracy nuts out there.
It's because so many in government act JUST LIKE the stereotypical conspirators they fear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353466</id>
	<title>Well then</title>
	<author>Alphanos</author>
	<datestamp>1260203520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the contents of this treaty are so abhorrent that politicians cannot survive being associated with it, then that seems like a great reason why everyone should walk away from the table.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the contents of this treaty are so abhorrent that politicians can not survive being associated with it , then that seems like a great reason why everyone should walk away from the table .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the contents of this treaty are so abhorrent that politicians cannot survive being associated with it, then that seems like a great reason why everyone should walk away from the table.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30363068</id>
	<title>Re:The question is...</title>
	<author>JAlexoi</author>
	<datestamp>1260267540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A) All diplomats are interested in promoting their own country's economy<br>
B) Most of the world diplomats are NOT representatives of corporations. And most corporations are not really interested in diplomats, since diplomats have very little effective decision making power.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A ) All diplomats are interested in promoting their own country 's economy B ) Most of the world diplomats are NOT representatives of corporations .
And most corporations are not really interested in diplomats , since diplomats have very little effective decision making power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A) All diplomats are interested in promoting their own country's economy
B) Most of the world diplomats are NOT representatives of corporations.
And most corporations are not really interested in diplomats, since diplomats have very little effective decision making power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353616</id>
	<title>Most of these ideas will pass</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1260204300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and though most of us won't want it, most of us won't really do or say anything until our friends, family, and selves, are spending time in jail or paying huge fines for actions we generally thought were harmless.</p><p>Like the opinion machine on TV is gonna spin it any other way than 'we need it, you just don't know it'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and though most of us wo n't want it , most of us wo n't really do or say anything until our friends , family , and selves , are spending time in jail or paying huge fines for actions we generally thought were harmless.Like the opinion machine on TV is gon na spin it any other way than 'we need it , you just do n't know it' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and though most of us won't want it, most of us won't really do or say anything until our friends, family, and selves, are spending time in jail or paying huge fines for actions we generally thought were harmless.Like the opinion machine on TV is gonna spin it any other way than 'we need it, you just don't know it'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30355190</id>
	<title>Re:The question is...</title>
	<author>daemonburrito</author>
	<datestamp>1260210720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is not the status quo. This fact is critical for context.</p><p>Read the <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/05/us-trade-rep-weasels.html" title="boingboing.net">discussion on boingboing</a> [boingboing.net], where you'll find a conversation with both Cory Doctorow and the author. This negotiation is a departure from the norm, and it is precisely due to the trouble that people like Doctorow caused the last time around, afaict.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not the status quo .
This fact is critical for context.Read the discussion on boingboing [ boingboing.net ] , where you 'll find a conversation with both Cory Doctorow and the author .
This negotiation is a departure from the norm , and it is precisely due to the trouble that people like Doctorow caused the last time around , afaict .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not the status quo.
This fact is critical for context.Read the discussion on boingboing [boingboing.net], where you'll find a conversation with both Cory Doctorow and the author.
This negotiation is a departure from the norm, and it is precisely due to the trouble that people like Doctorow caused the last time around, afaict.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353638</id>
	<title>Corporate lobbyists  public ???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260204420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, so the text *is* shown to corporate lobbyists, but *not* to the public?</p><p>He's worried about people walking away from the table? No kidding. People *should* walk away from such a table!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , so the text * is * shown to corporate lobbyists , but * not * to the public ? He 's worried about people walking away from the table ?
No kidding .
People * should * walk away from such a table !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, so the text *is* shown to corporate lobbyists, but *not* to the public?He's worried about people walking away from the table?
No kidding.
People *should* walk away from such a table!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30362434</id>
	<title>Re:The question is...</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1260215400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember the Alamo!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember the Alamo !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember the Alamo!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30355482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30357246</id>
	<title>Re:F*CKING BUSH!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260177660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about those of us who saw Obama for what he was: a center-right pragmatist in the mold of Bill Clinton?</p><p>And it isn't like plenty of left leaning folks like myself, when decrying Bush's creeping police state, didnt say something along the lines of "you may think this is a good idea now, but they pendulum swings both ways, and it'll be a Democrat in the White House eventually."</p><p>On more substantial matters, there's a big difference between Bush/Obama or McCain/Obama.  On esoteric things like this, that tend to only be of interest to the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. crowd, I suppose you're right that there's not much difference.</p><p>Still, give me Obama over McCain anyday.  And it's just a treaty.  We stopped caring about those when Bush was in office.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about those of us who saw Obama for what he was : a center-right pragmatist in the mold of Bill Clinton ? And it is n't like plenty of left leaning folks like myself , when decrying Bush 's creeping police state , didnt say something along the lines of " you may think this is a good idea now , but they pendulum swings both ways , and it 'll be a Democrat in the White House eventually .
" On more substantial matters , there 's a big difference between Bush/Obama or McCain/Obama .
On esoteric things like this , that tend to only be of interest to the / .
crowd , I suppose you 're right that there 's not much difference.Still , give me Obama over McCain anyday .
And it 's just a treaty .
We stopped caring about those when Bush was in office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about those of us who saw Obama for what he was: a center-right pragmatist in the mold of Bill Clinton?And it isn't like plenty of left leaning folks like myself, when decrying Bush's creeping police state, didnt say something along the lines of "you may think this is a good idea now, but they pendulum swings both ways, and it'll be a Democrat in the White House eventually.
"On more substantial matters, there's a big difference between Bush/Obama or McCain/Obama.
On esoteric things like this, that tend to only be of interest to the /.
crowd, I suppose you're right that there's not much difference.Still, give me Obama over McCain anyday.
And it's just a treaty.
We stopped caring about those when Bush was in office.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30355562</id>
	<title>Re:The question is...</title>
	<author>novalis112</author>
	<datestamp>1260212640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't think of any reason why world leaders would walk away from this process if the secrecy were removed, unless they knew that what they were doing would be frowned upon by the people they claim to be representing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't think of any reason why world leaders would walk away from this process if the secrecy were removed , unless they knew that what they were doing would be frowned upon by the people they claim to be representing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't think of any reason why world leaders would walk away from this process if the secrecy were removed, unless they knew that what they were doing would be frowned upon by the people they claim to be representing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30356814</id>
	<title>Re:Down with the Government</title>
	<author>Hairy1</author>
	<datestamp>1260218760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Violence isn't the answer. I sympathise with your point of view, and strongly believe we can do better, but there is no reason we cannot affect change through Democratic processes and pressure in society. Who would one fight? What would we replace the current system with?</p><p>I dream of a system that works more like science - where anyone can put forward an idea and that it will be critiqued by peers based on evidence and rational analysis, and that only once an idea has been reviewed and improved in this manner that it be introduced to Parliament.</p><p>Currently the executive power is opaque. Policy and legislative changes are generally developed in cloistered halls. The general public and experts have no input to policy unless asked. Even when asked their input is easily ignored.</p><p>The "Select Committee" process is one where one comes before authority to plead your case to those in power. There is no discussion. It is far away from a scientific approach where ideas are published, developed and reviewed. It allows people who were elected based on ideological views to press home policies which have not had review except by a elite group called cabinet. Elections are a blunt tool for true involvement of people in Government.</p><p>I'm not suggesting direct democracy. In this picture our representatives still have the final say on what becomes law. Introducing meaningful development and review such as what the Police attempted to do a little while ago would be a huge leap forward.</p><p>We really do need to evolve beyond electing the people to blame and develop a system that is more inclusive of those with the expertise to provide rational input into policy. Like us<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Violence is n't the answer .
I sympathise with your point of view , and strongly believe we can do better , but there is no reason we can not affect change through Democratic processes and pressure in society .
Who would one fight ?
What would we replace the current system with ? I dream of a system that works more like science - where anyone can put forward an idea and that it will be critiqued by peers based on evidence and rational analysis , and that only once an idea has been reviewed and improved in this manner that it be introduced to Parliament.Currently the executive power is opaque .
Policy and legislative changes are generally developed in cloistered halls .
The general public and experts have no input to policy unless asked .
Even when asked their input is easily ignored.The " Select Committee " process is one where one comes before authority to plead your case to those in power .
There is no discussion .
It is far away from a scientific approach where ideas are published , developed and reviewed .
It allows people who were elected based on ideological views to press home policies which have not had review except by a elite group called cabinet .
Elections are a blunt tool for true involvement of people in Government.I 'm not suggesting direct democracy .
In this picture our representatives still have the final say on what becomes law .
Introducing meaningful development and review such as what the Police attempted to do a little while ago would be a huge leap forward.We really do need to evolve beyond electing the people to blame and develop a system that is more inclusive of those with the expertise to provide rational input into policy .
Like us ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Violence isn't the answer.
I sympathise with your point of view, and strongly believe we can do better, but there is no reason we cannot affect change through Democratic processes and pressure in society.
Who would one fight?
What would we replace the current system with?I dream of a system that works more like science - where anyone can put forward an idea and that it will be critiqued by peers based on evidence and rational analysis, and that only once an idea has been reviewed and improved in this manner that it be introduced to Parliament.Currently the executive power is opaque.
Policy and legislative changes are generally developed in cloistered halls.
The general public and experts have no input to policy unless asked.
Even when asked their input is easily ignored.The "Select Committee" process is one where one comes before authority to plead your case to those in power.
There is no discussion.
It is far away from a scientific approach where ideas are published, developed and reviewed.
It allows people who were elected based on ideological views to press home policies which have not had review except by a elite group called cabinet.
Elections are a blunt tool for true involvement of people in Government.I'm not suggesting direct democracy.
In this picture our representatives still have the final say on what becomes law.
Introducing meaningful development and review such as what the Police attempted to do a little while ago would be a huge leap forward.We really do need to evolve beyond electing the people to blame and develop a system that is more inclusive of those with the expertise to provide rational input into policy.
Like us ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30356396</id>
	<title>Re:The question is...</title>
	<author>Reziac</author>
	<datestamp>1260216660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only that, but if "people would be walking away from the table"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Firstoff, let the political gamers walk. If they won't deal straight-up, they can be left out of the process.</p><p>Second, if the terms are so onerous that everyone walks away, explain to me how this treaty could possibly be all that good??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only that , but if " people would be walking away from the table " ...Firstoff , let the political gamers walk .
If they wo n't deal straight-up , they can be left out of the process.Second , if the terms are so onerous that everyone walks away , explain to me how this treaty could possibly be all that good ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only that, but if "people would be walking away from the table" ...Firstoff, let the political gamers walk.
If they won't deal straight-up, they can be left out of the process.Second, if the terms are so onerous that everyone walks away, explain to me how this treaty could possibly be all that good?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30357730</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome to the Brave New World!</title>
	<author>gink1</author>
	<datestamp>1260180180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What better way to revive your failing business models than by destroying competition by using a Secret "Government" Treaty that you have funded?</p><p>Who can blame the bloated record companies and overpriced distribution companies pushing DRM compromised media?<br>After all it wasn't them that slammed a repressive set of draconian laws down on once-free countries! It was their pawns the Congress! It was their pawn Obama!</p><p>So hurry to buy the wares of these companies and blind your eyes to the "special" new prices that have sprung up overnight (and that is part of the plan).</p><p>It's all just a special deal to make bigger fortunes more quickly for the rich - presumably with our bewildered cooperation.</p><p>And of course Obama feels it's Change We Can Believe in! Gotta love that man.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What better way to revive your failing business models than by destroying competition by using a Secret " Government " Treaty that you have funded ? Who can blame the bloated record companies and overpriced distribution companies pushing DRM compromised media ? After all it was n't them that slammed a repressive set of draconian laws down on once-free countries !
It was their pawns the Congress !
It was their pawn Obama ! So hurry to buy the wares of these companies and blind your eyes to the " special " new prices that have sprung up overnight ( and that is part of the plan ) .It 's all just a special deal to make bigger fortunes more quickly for the rich - presumably with our bewildered cooperation.And of course Obama feels it 's Change We Can Believe in !
Got ta love that man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What better way to revive your failing business models than by destroying competition by using a Secret "Government" Treaty that you have funded?Who can blame the bloated record companies and overpriced distribution companies pushing DRM compromised media?After all it wasn't them that slammed a repressive set of draconian laws down on once-free countries!
It was their pawns the Congress!
It was their pawn Obama!So hurry to buy the wares of these companies and blind your eyes to the "special" new prices that have sprung up overnight (and that is part of the plan).It's all just a special deal to make bigger fortunes more quickly for the rich - presumably with our bewildered cooperation.And of course Obama feels it's Change We Can Believe in!
Gotta love that man.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354556</id>
	<title>Re:F*CKING BUSH!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260208020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who will be just as bad as all the others. The act of standing for public office is evidence of being an unsuitable person to hold office.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who will be just as bad as all the others .
The act of standing for public office is evidence of being an unsuitable person to hold office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who will be just as bad as all the others.
The act of standing for public office is evidence of being an unsuitable person to hold office.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353614</id>
	<title>Required</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1260204300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If people would walk away from the table if the text was made public then that is all the more reason to make the text public. Not because I want people to leave the talks but, if people are unwilling to participate in talks if it's open to public scrutiny then there is no more obvious an indication that those talks should not be happening.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If people would walk away from the table if the text was made public then that is all the more reason to make the text public .
Not because I want people to leave the talks but , if people are unwilling to participate in talks if it 's open to public scrutiny then there is no more obvious an indication that those talks should not be happening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If people would walk away from the table if the text was made public then that is all the more reason to make the text public.
Not because I want people to leave the talks but, if people are unwilling to participate in talks if it's open to public scrutiny then there is no more obvious an indication that those talks should not be happening.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30355862</id>
	<title>Re:The question is...</title>
	<author>sabt-pestnu</author>
	<datestamp>1260214080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting, true, but (FTFA)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>it was untrue that IPR negotiations are normally secret, mentioning as examples that drafts of the other IPR texts, including the proposed WIPO treaty for disabilities and the climate change agreement language on IPR, as well as several drafts of the FTAA text and the 1996 WIPO copyright treaties had been public. Kirk said that ACTA "was different" and the topics being negotiated in ACTA were "more complex."</p></div><p>Perhaps because instead of dealing with nations, they were dealing with corporations?  "Corporate paymaster" tin hat comments aside, the corporations may simply not have as many cut-outs as they like in this discussion.</p><p>Don't imagine that even public sessions are <a href="http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2004/11/letter-wipo-stolen-eff-documents" title="eff.org">innocent affairs</a> [eff.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting , true , but ( FTFA ) ...it was untrue that IPR negotiations are normally secret , mentioning as examples that drafts of the other IPR texts , including the proposed WIPO treaty for disabilities and the climate change agreement language on IPR , as well as several drafts of the FTAA text and the 1996 WIPO copyright treaties had been public .
Kirk said that ACTA " was different " and the topics being negotiated in ACTA were " more complex .
" Perhaps because instead of dealing with nations , they were dealing with corporations ?
" Corporate paymaster " tin hat comments aside , the corporations may simply not have as many cut-outs as they like in this discussion.Do n't imagine that even public sessions are innocent affairs [ eff.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting, true, but (FTFA) ...it was untrue that IPR negotiations are normally secret, mentioning as examples that drafts of the other IPR texts, including the proposed WIPO treaty for disabilities and the climate change agreement language on IPR, as well as several drafts of the FTAA text and the 1996 WIPO copyright treaties had been public.
Kirk said that ACTA "was different" and the topics being negotiated in ACTA were "more complex.
"Perhaps because instead of dealing with nations, they were dealing with corporations?
"Corporate paymaster" tin hat comments aside, the corporations may simply not have as many cut-outs as they like in this discussion.Don't imagine that even public sessions are innocent affairs [eff.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30357352</id>
	<title>Re:The question is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260178260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A democratic country that believes in openness could at least publish its own starting point for the negotiations so that its citizens could object to them if needed. Right?</p><p>This could have a large number of benefits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A democratic country that believes in openness could at least publish its own starting point for the negotiations so that its citizens could object to them if needed .
Right ? This could have a large number of benefits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A democratic country that believes in openness could at least publish its own starting point for the negotiations so that its citizens could object to them if needed.
Right?This could have a large number of benefits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353766</id>
	<title>Re:Down with the Government</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260204900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I feel that those who represent us in this country have long ago forgotten the best interests of those they serve, the People, or more correctly, have just decided that it's more profitable serving Corporations and sacrificing essential freedoms for temporary security and monetary reward.</i>
<br>
<br>
I would like to point out that if you are anyone other than a white male in this country, you currently enjoy far more freedom than at any point in our country's history. <br>
<br>
<i>We must abolish the Federal Government as it currently stands and return to the ideals of the Founding Fathers on which they attempted to create a nation: The Inalienable Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.</i>
<br>
<br>
<i>The problem is that there is a politician in the White House, instead of a Citizen-Servant who is First Among Equals, not elevated to the status of Royalty</i>
<br>
<br>
The only president we've ever had who arguably wasn't a politician is, and this is just arguable, was George Washington.  Everybody after him has been a politician.
<br>
<br>
<i>No one should have the right to restrict my freedom to do as I wish so long as I do not materially harm another human being.</i>
<br>
<br>
Alright, this is NOT what the Founding Fathers believed in.  If this is what you want, fine, I actually agree that ideally this should be the goal of our society (though I would add "harm another living thing unnecessarily"), but our Founding Fathers would NOT agree with this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel that those who represent us in this country have long ago forgotten the best interests of those they serve , the People , or more correctly , have just decided that it 's more profitable serving Corporations and sacrificing essential freedoms for temporary security and monetary reward .
I would like to point out that if you are anyone other than a white male in this country , you currently enjoy far more freedom than at any point in our country 's history .
We must abolish the Federal Government as it currently stands and return to the ideals of the Founding Fathers on which they attempted to create a nation : The Inalienable Rights to Life , Liberty , and the Pursuit of Happiness .
The problem is that there is a politician in the White House , instead of a Citizen-Servant who is First Among Equals , not elevated to the status of Royalty The only president we 've ever had who arguably was n't a politician is , and this is just arguable , was George Washington .
Everybody after him has been a politician .
No one should have the right to restrict my freedom to do as I wish so long as I do not materially harm another human being .
Alright , this is NOT what the Founding Fathers believed in .
If this is what you want , fine , I actually agree that ideally this should be the goal of our society ( though I would add " harm another living thing unnecessarily " ) , but our Founding Fathers would NOT agree with this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel that those who represent us in this country have long ago forgotten the best interests of those they serve, the People, or more correctly, have just decided that it's more profitable serving Corporations and sacrificing essential freedoms for temporary security and monetary reward.
I would like to point out that if you are anyone other than a white male in this country, you currently enjoy far more freedom than at any point in our country's history.
We must abolish the Federal Government as it currently stands and return to the ideals of the Founding Fathers on which they attempted to create a nation: The Inalienable Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
The problem is that there is a politician in the White House, instead of a Citizen-Servant who is First Among Equals, not elevated to the status of Royalty


The only president we've ever had who arguably wasn't a politician is, and this is just arguable, was George Washington.
Everybody after him has been a politician.
No one should have the right to restrict my freedom to do as I wish so long as I do not materially harm another human being.
Alright, this is NOT what the Founding Fathers believed in.
If this is what you want, fine, I actually agree that ideally this should be the goal of our society (though I would add "harm another living thing unnecessarily"), but our Founding Fathers would NOT agree with this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30366320</id>
	<title>Mr. Kirk should move</title>
	<author>Xenophore</author>
	<datestamp>1260292260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Despite being the former mayor of Dallas, it sounds like Mr. Kirk should permanently move to Washington or Chicago where he'll feel more at home.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Despite being the former mayor of Dallas , it sounds like Mr. Kirk should permanently move to Washington or Chicago where he 'll feel more at home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Despite being the former mayor of Dallas, it sounds like Mr. Kirk should permanently move to Washington or Chicago where he'll feel more at home.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30357572</id>
	<title>go on and make it secret</title>
	<author>thehostiles</author>
	<datestamp>1260179400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the more you bury things like this, the more people try to dig it up</htmltext>
<tokenext>the more you bury things like this , the more people try to dig it up</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the more you bury things like this, the more people try to dig it up</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354424</id>
	<title>Re:The question is...</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1260207540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; International politics is an insanely complex and yet dreadfully boring game played<br>&gt; by suits behind closed doors. I'm not personally advocating secrecy, but welcome to<br>&gt; the status quo.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...then it's long over due for that to end.</p><p>Most of the signatory nations would not tolerate this of their elected bodies. They should<br>expect no less of this sort of backhanded attempt at "world government". All of the citizens<br>in question should be screaming bloody murder over the cloak &amp; dagger nonsense here.</p><p>Where's a rampaging band of rioting Parisians when you need one?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; International politics is an insanely complex and yet dreadfully boring game played &gt; by suits behind closed doors .
I 'm not personally advocating secrecy , but welcome to &gt; the status quo .
...then it 's long over due for that to end.Most of the signatory nations would not tolerate this of their elected bodies .
They shouldexpect no less of this sort of backhanded attempt at " world government " .
All of the citizensin question should be screaming bloody murder over the cloak &amp; dagger nonsense here.Where 's a rampaging band of rioting Parisians when you need one ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; International politics is an insanely complex and yet dreadfully boring game played&gt; by suits behind closed doors.
I'm not personally advocating secrecy, but welcome to&gt; the status quo.
...then it's long over due for that to end.Most of the signatory nations would not tolerate this of their elected bodies.
They shouldexpect no less of this sort of backhanded attempt at "world government".
All of the citizensin question should be screaming bloody murder over the cloak &amp; dagger nonsense here.Where's a rampaging band of rioting Parisians when you need one?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30356494</id>
	<title>Re:The question is...</title>
	<author>jplove</author>
	<datestamp>1260217260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think this is very accurate.  All other multilateral IPR negotiations are far more transparent:<br>http://www.keionline.org/misc-docs/4/attachment1\_transparency\_ustr.pdf</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think this is very accurate .
All other multilateral IPR negotiations are far more transparent : http : //www.keionline.org/misc-docs/4/attachment1 \ _transparency \ _ustr.pdf</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think this is very accurate.
All other multilateral IPR negotiations are far more transparent:http://www.keionline.org/misc-docs/4/attachment1\_transparency\_ustr.pdf</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30362134</id>
	<title>Re:Down with the Government</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260211860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't agree with you on the "far more freedom" comment. The simple fact that on in 18 US males is in the correctional system (in prison, jail, probation or other monitoring) today should throw off those statistics. How about all the laws against activities that weren't even possible a hundred years ago, like computer crimes? Are you counting those new possible activities as increases in freedom, so therefore restrictions against them don't count, since there's a net increase in freedom? That's not the way I look at things. How about all the new sex crimes that exist now that weren't crimes before? Civil forfeiture laws where your property can be taken away from you if it's somehow involved in a crime even if you're never convicted or arrested, or even charged or if, in fact, no-one is ever charged? Freedom to travel? Freedom from search without due process of law?, etc.<br>I suppose it depends on what freedoms you personally consider important since it seems to be a constant balancing act of some freedoms being increased and some being lost. A fictional example here: science fiction author Lois McMaster Bujold has a science fiction universe with numerous plants, one of them is Barrayar which, early in its colonisation, was cut off from Earth for centuries and technologically and culturally devolved until it was rediscovered and started rejoining the galactic community. They are ruled by an emperor and a council of district counts. There's a military caste based upper class with various rights above those enjoyed by the proletariat (such as owning weapons, right to trial by peers, etc.). A contrast is Beta Colony, which is a technologically advanced democracy with a term-limited president and with extremely egalitarian policies. During a discussion between some characters working on bio-ethics laws to deal with problems relating to cloning, uterine replicators (tanks for growing children without the dangers of human pregnancy), etc. one of the characters remarks that modeling the laws partly after the laws of Beta colony would be useful, but that lifting the Betan model wholesale would be a recipe for revolution. The chief reason for this is that the Betans require anyone who is going to have sexual intercourse to have a contraceptive implant and they can only have children if they take a course and get a license to be a parent. Each additional child requiring separate approval and so forth. So, while the average Betan is freer under the law in general than the average Barrayaran and would laugh at the idea that Barrayarans have more freedoms than them in any regard, curtailment of the reproductive freedom the Barrayarans have always enjoyed would be considered utterly abhorrent to Barrayarans whereas the Betans look at those restrictions as merely a form of social responsibility.<br>To leave fictional examples behind, consider the homeless. The ones who just drop out of society and live on the streets basically as hunter-gatherers. Most of them are criminals. That is not a value judgement. But nearly all of them are violating laws against public urination and defecation, sleeping in public places, trespassing, loitering, vagrancy (ok, not nearly all of them are violating these laws, all of them are in places that have vagrancy laws since vagrancy laws specifically exist to make being poor illegal), creating a public disturbance, resisting arrest, damaging police property (wear and tear on truncheons), poaching (for anyone who say fishes in the harbor without a license), etc., etc., etc. Their entire way of life is basically illegal unless they just die, which is what seems to have been desired by the people who called for most of those laws in the first place. Basically, they have no legal rights to do the things that they do to keep themselves alive. Now, go back in time ten-thousand years and look at tribal hunter gatherers who lived like that. In many ways they weren't free. The tribes leadership could make anything they chose illegal, demand that weird taboos be observed, etc. If someone, or a group of someones</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't agree with you on the " far more freedom " comment .
The simple fact that on in 18 US males is in the correctional system ( in prison , jail , probation or other monitoring ) today should throw off those statistics .
How about all the laws against activities that were n't even possible a hundred years ago , like computer crimes ?
Are you counting those new possible activities as increases in freedom , so therefore restrictions against them do n't count , since there 's a net increase in freedom ?
That 's not the way I look at things .
How about all the new sex crimes that exist now that were n't crimes before ?
Civil forfeiture laws where your property can be taken away from you if it 's somehow involved in a crime even if you 're never convicted or arrested , or even charged or if , in fact , no-one is ever charged ?
Freedom to travel ?
Freedom from search without due process of law ? , etc.I suppose it depends on what freedoms you personally consider important since it seems to be a constant balancing act of some freedoms being increased and some being lost .
A fictional example here : science fiction author Lois McMaster Bujold has a science fiction universe with numerous plants , one of them is Barrayar which , early in its colonisation , was cut off from Earth for centuries and technologically and culturally devolved until it was rediscovered and started rejoining the galactic community .
They are ruled by an emperor and a council of district counts .
There 's a military caste based upper class with various rights above those enjoyed by the proletariat ( such as owning weapons , right to trial by peers , etc. ) .
A contrast is Beta Colony , which is a technologically advanced democracy with a term-limited president and with extremely egalitarian policies .
During a discussion between some characters working on bio-ethics laws to deal with problems relating to cloning , uterine replicators ( tanks for growing children without the dangers of human pregnancy ) , etc .
one of the characters remarks that modeling the laws partly after the laws of Beta colony would be useful , but that lifting the Betan model wholesale would be a recipe for revolution .
The chief reason for this is that the Betans require anyone who is going to have sexual intercourse to have a contraceptive implant and they can only have children if they take a course and get a license to be a parent .
Each additional child requiring separate approval and so forth .
So , while the average Betan is freer under the law in general than the average Barrayaran and would laugh at the idea that Barrayarans have more freedoms than them in any regard , curtailment of the reproductive freedom the Barrayarans have always enjoyed would be considered utterly abhorrent to Barrayarans whereas the Betans look at those restrictions as merely a form of social responsibility.To leave fictional examples behind , consider the homeless .
The ones who just drop out of society and live on the streets basically as hunter-gatherers .
Most of them are criminals .
That is not a value judgement .
But nearly all of them are violating laws against public urination and defecation , sleeping in public places , trespassing , loitering , vagrancy ( ok , not nearly all of them are violating these laws , all of them are in places that have vagrancy laws since vagrancy laws specifically exist to make being poor illegal ) , creating a public disturbance , resisting arrest , damaging police property ( wear and tear on truncheons ) , poaching ( for anyone who say fishes in the harbor without a license ) , etc. , etc. , etc .
Their entire way of life is basically illegal unless they just die , which is what seems to have been desired by the people who called for most of those laws in the first place .
Basically , they have no legal rights to do the things that they do to keep themselves alive .
Now , go back in time ten-thousand years and look at tribal hunter gatherers who lived like that .
In many ways they were n't free .
The tribes leadership could make anything they chose illegal , demand that weird taboos be observed , etc .
If someone , or a group of someones</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't agree with you on the "far more freedom" comment.
The simple fact that on in 18 US males is in the correctional system (in prison, jail, probation or other monitoring) today should throw off those statistics.
How about all the laws against activities that weren't even possible a hundred years ago, like computer crimes?
Are you counting those new possible activities as increases in freedom, so therefore restrictions against them don't count, since there's a net increase in freedom?
That's not the way I look at things.
How about all the new sex crimes that exist now that weren't crimes before?
Civil forfeiture laws where your property can be taken away from you if it's somehow involved in a crime even if you're never convicted or arrested, or even charged or if, in fact, no-one is ever charged?
Freedom to travel?
Freedom from search without due process of law?, etc.I suppose it depends on what freedoms you personally consider important since it seems to be a constant balancing act of some freedoms being increased and some being lost.
A fictional example here: science fiction author Lois McMaster Bujold has a science fiction universe with numerous plants, one of them is Barrayar which, early in its colonisation, was cut off from Earth for centuries and technologically and culturally devolved until it was rediscovered and started rejoining the galactic community.
They are ruled by an emperor and a council of district counts.
There's a military caste based upper class with various rights above those enjoyed by the proletariat (such as owning weapons, right to trial by peers, etc.).
A contrast is Beta Colony, which is a technologically advanced democracy with a term-limited president and with extremely egalitarian policies.
During a discussion between some characters working on bio-ethics laws to deal with problems relating to cloning, uterine replicators (tanks for growing children without the dangers of human pregnancy), etc.
one of the characters remarks that modeling the laws partly after the laws of Beta colony would be useful, but that lifting the Betan model wholesale would be a recipe for revolution.
The chief reason for this is that the Betans require anyone who is going to have sexual intercourse to have a contraceptive implant and they can only have children if they take a course and get a license to be a parent.
Each additional child requiring separate approval and so forth.
So, while the average Betan is freer under the law in general than the average Barrayaran and would laugh at the idea that Barrayarans have more freedoms than them in any regard, curtailment of the reproductive freedom the Barrayarans have always enjoyed would be considered utterly abhorrent to Barrayarans whereas the Betans look at those restrictions as merely a form of social responsibility.To leave fictional examples behind, consider the homeless.
The ones who just drop out of society and live on the streets basically as hunter-gatherers.
Most of them are criminals.
That is not a value judgement.
But nearly all of them are violating laws against public urination and defecation, sleeping in public places, trespassing, loitering, vagrancy (ok, not nearly all of them are violating these laws, all of them are in places that have vagrancy laws since vagrancy laws specifically exist to make being poor illegal), creating a public disturbance, resisting arrest, damaging police property (wear and tear on truncheons), poaching (for anyone who say fishes in the harbor without a license), etc., etc., etc.
Their entire way of life is basically illegal unless they just die, which is what seems to have been desired by the people who called for most of those laws in the first place.
Basically, they have no legal rights to do the things that they do to keep themselves alive.
Now, go back in time ten-thousand years and look at tribal hunter gatherers who lived like that.
In many ways they weren't free.
The tribes leadership could make anything they chose illegal, demand that weird taboos be observed, etc.
If someone, or a group of someones</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354340</id>
	<title>Re:F*CKING BUSH!!!</title>
	<author>sanosuke001</author>
	<datestamp>1260207300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>whoever modded this funny should re-evaluate the state of affairs. Obama is no different than Bush; those of you who saw the next coming of the messiah were shortsighted and ignorant. Those of you who are now saying, "I told you my vote for McCain was right" are just as shortsighted and ignorant if not more so as he would have been just as bad, if not worse.<br> <br>

The only difference between Obama and McCain is that McCain is up front with his tactics; Obama just flat out lied.</htmltext>
<tokenext>whoever modded this funny should re-evaluate the state of affairs .
Obama is no different than Bush ; those of you who saw the next coming of the messiah were shortsighted and ignorant .
Those of you who are now saying , " I told you my vote for McCain was right " are just as shortsighted and ignorant if not more so as he would have been just as bad , if not worse .
The only difference between Obama and McCain is that McCain is up front with his tactics ; Obama just flat out lied .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>whoever modded this funny should re-evaluate the state of affairs.
Obama is no different than Bush; those of you who saw the next coming of the messiah were shortsighted and ignorant.
Those of you who are now saying, "I told you my vote for McCain was right" are just as shortsighted and ignorant if not more so as he would have been just as bad, if not worse.
The only difference between Obama and McCain is that McCain is up front with his tactics; Obama just flat out lied.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30358596</id>
	<title>Re:Down with the Government</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1260185100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The only president we've ever had who arguably wasn't a politician is, and this is just arguable, was George Washington. "</p><p>So... it's okay to be a person whose career involves killing people and breaking things to force your will on others... but not to be a person whose career involves talking to people in complicated deals to get them to come to an agreement without violence? The world would be a happier, more honourable place if the simple down-homey kill-people-and-break-their-stuff guys were in charge instead of those nasty slick talk-to-em guys?</p><p>Dunno about you but I'll take my chances with jaw, jaw over war, war.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The only president we 've ever had who arguably was n't a politician is , and this is just arguable , was George Washington .
" So... it 's okay to be a person whose career involves killing people and breaking things to force your will on others... but not to be a person whose career involves talking to people in complicated deals to get them to come to an agreement without violence ?
The world would be a happier , more honourable place if the simple down-homey kill-people-and-break-their-stuff guys were in charge instead of those nasty slick talk-to-em guys ? Dunno about you but I 'll take my chances with jaw , jaw over war , war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The only president we've ever had who arguably wasn't a politician is, and this is just arguable, was George Washington.
"So... it's okay to be a person whose career involves killing people and breaking things to force your will on others... but not to be a person whose career involves talking to people in complicated deals to get them to come to an agreement without violence?
The world would be a happier, more honourable place if the simple down-homey kill-people-and-break-their-stuff guys were in charge instead of those nasty slick talk-to-em guys?Dunno about you but I'll take my chances with jaw, jaw over war, war.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30355042</id>
	<title>Re:The question is...</title>
	<author>gutnor</author>
	<datestamp>1260210060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with you, however to play devil advocate, the only problem is that the people negociating are human being.
<br> <br>
The problem with negociating publicly is it will push some parties to do some public statement to their countries: for example, saying that they will never approve X or that they will fight for Y. Pure human psychology, it seems that when you declare publicly something it is kind of hard to publicly switch your position. It makes you look weak. So keeping stuff secret, especially at international level, is certainly helping - as it would help at every level.
<br> <br>
The real problem is not that the negociations are done in secret, it shouldn't be: in theory you sent there people you trust, elected representative<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the problem is that the people you sent there are people that, for good reason, you don't trust anymore. Also, strangely, people negociating are not accountable. When was the last time a politician career was stopped because he screwed people voting for him ? Well in the US, it seems the only real cause of politician early retirement is seeing prostitutes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you , however to play devil advocate , the only problem is that the people negociating are human being .
The problem with negociating publicly is it will push some parties to do some public statement to their countries : for example , saying that they will never approve X or that they will fight for Y. Pure human psychology , it seems that when you declare publicly something it is kind of hard to publicly switch your position .
It makes you look weak .
So keeping stuff secret , especially at international level , is certainly helping - as it would help at every level .
The real problem is not that the negociations are done in secret , it should n't be : in theory you sent there people you trust , elected representative ... the problem is that the people you sent there are people that , for good reason , you do n't trust anymore .
Also , strangely , people negociating are not accountable .
When was the last time a politician career was stopped because he screwed people voting for him ?
Well in the US , it seems the only real cause of politician early retirement is seeing prostitutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you, however to play devil advocate, the only problem is that the people negociating are human being.
The problem with negociating publicly is it will push some parties to do some public statement to their countries: for example, saying that they will never approve X or that they will fight for Y. Pure human psychology, it seems that when you declare publicly something it is kind of hard to publicly switch your position.
It makes you look weak.
So keeping stuff secret, especially at international level, is certainly helping - as it would help at every level.
The real problem is not that the negociations are done in secret, it shouldn't be: in theory you sent there people you trust, elected representative ... the problem is that the people you sent there are people that, for good reason, you don't trust anymore.
Also, strangely, people negociating are not accountable.
When was the last time a politician career was stopped because he screwed people voting for him ?
Well in the US, it seems the only real cause of politician early retirement is seeing prostitutes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353680</id>
	<title>Fixing the quote...</title>
	<author>IBBoard</author>
	<datestamp>1260204660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>According to Ambassador Ron Kirk, the head of US Trade Representatives, the secrecy around the ACTA copyright treaty is necessary because without that secrecy, people would be '<b>throwing a tantrum, chucking their toys out of the pram and generally having a paddy on behalf of their paying taskmasters (the entertainment industry)</b>.'</p></div></blockquote><p>There, fixed that for him!</p><p>When will the rule of law next be used in the interests of the public as a whole rather than of the corporations? (and no, I don't mean "we should be free to do teh piratez! making money is wrongz", I mean sensible law that benefits society as a whole).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to Ambassador Ron Kirk , the head of US Trade Representatives , the secrecy around the ACTA copyright treaty is necessary because without that secrecy , people would be 'throwing a tantrum , chucking their toys out of the pram and generally having a paddy on behalf of their paying taskmasters ( the entertainment industry ) .
'There , fixed that for him ! When will the rule of law next be used in the interests of the public as a whole rather than of the corporations ?
( and no , I do n't mean " we should be free to do teh piratez !
making money is wrongz " , I mean sensible law that benefits society as a whole ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to Ambassador Ron Kirk, the head of US Trade Representatives, the secrecy around the ACTA copyright treaty is necessary because without that secrecy, people would be 'throwing a tantrum, chucking their toys out of the pram and generally having a paddy on behalf of their paying taskmasters (the entertainment industry).
'There, fixed that for him!When will the rule of law next be used in the interests of the public as a whole rather than of the corporations?
(and no, I don't mean "we should be free to do teh piratez!
making money is wrongz", I mean sensible law that benefits society as a whole).
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30356614</id>
	<title>Re:Down with the Government</title>
	<author>Reziac</author>
	<datestamp>1260217800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well said. Hope you don't mind if I steal your small rant and quote it to others.</p><p>Most especially this part:</p><p>"I am an American Citizen. Not a taxpayer. Not a consumer. A citizen.</p><p>My government no longer has my consent to government. I only obey laws out of fear of punishment, not because I believe that such behaviors is correct and moral."</p><p>How did someone put it? Something like "When people fear the gov't, there is tyranny. When gov't fears the people, there is liberty."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well said .
Hope you do n't mind if I steal your small rant and quote it to others.Most especially this part : " I am an American Citizen .
Not a taxpayer .
Not a consumer .
A citizen.My government no longer has my consent to government .
I only obey laws out of fear of punishment , not because I believe that such behaviors is correct and moral .
" How did someone put it ?
Something like " When people fear the gov't , there is tyranny .
When gov't fears the people , there is liberty .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well said.
Hope you don't mind if I steal your small rant and quote it to others.Most especially this part:"I am an American Citizen.
Not a taxpayer.
Not a consumer.
A citizen.My government no longer has my consent to government.
I only obey laws out of fear of punishment, not because I believe that such behaviors is correct and moral.
"How did someone put it?
Something like "When people fear the gov't, there is tyranny.
When gov't fears the people, there is liberty.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354614</id>
	<title>Re:Down with the Government</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260208320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Democracy 2.0, politics without politicians, is a great tag line, but what does it actually consist of?</p></div></blockquote><p>Can I put my feature request in?  I'd like to end winner take all voting, the end game of which is an oligarchy of two immovable political parties that ignore their constituents.  Maybe some kind of ranked voting method can shake things up?.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Democracy 2.0 , politics without politicians , is a great tag line , but what does it actually consist of ? Can I put my feature request in ?
I 'd like to end winner take all voting , the end game of which is an oligarchy of two immovable political parties that ignore their constituents .
Maybe some kind of ranked voting method can shake things up ? .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Democracy 2.0, politics without politicians, is a great tag line, but what does it actually consist of?Can I put my feature request in?
I'd like to end winner take all voting, the end game of which is an oligarchy of two immovable political parties that ignore their constituents.
Maybe some kind of ranked voting method can shake things up?.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30362240</id>
	<title>Re:Hard to see the redeeming qualities</title>
	<author>cpt kangarooski</author>
	<datestamp>1260213000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>On one hand, I see why a treaty like ACTA might be desirable to establish a common copyright law across all nations.</i></p><p>That's not desirable at all.</p><p>Each nation should pursue the copyright policy, and enact the copyright laws, that serve its own people best. This could be no copyright, or minimal copyright, or broad copyright, depending on the circumstances of each particular country. The only international cooperation on copyright matters ought to be that various countries will work to ensure that whatever copyright laws, if any, each has, they are not mutually incompatible such that an author might have to choose between a copyright in Canada, or a copyright in China, being unable to get both due to some sort of technical issue.</p><p>In the US, we should only enact copyright laws when doing so will promote the progress of science more than if we did not enact them, and then only to the extent that we enjoy the greatest public benefit for Americans. This can include granting copyrights on works created by foreigners without concern for reciprocity by their country, since one of our goals is to encourage authors to create and publish works, wherever they're from, and wherever they are working.</p><p>There's no reason for laws to be uniform, and in any event, it has helped get copyright laws in the fucked up state they are in now, and the various international agreements on the matter are significant obstacles to reforming the laws so that they can best serve the public interest.</p><p>Other than some fetish for it, I just don't see why anyone would want uniformity anyway.</p><p>As for the treaty, the reason major copyright legislation is conducted by means of treaty, rather than in national legislatures, is so that there is no public debate. The representatives of the people never have an opportunity to work out the details of the treaty according to the interests of their constituents. Instead, executive branches agree to the treaty and either bind their countries to it directly, bypassing legislative bodies, or present it to the legislature as a fait accompli which cannot be altered and which has too much riding on it to be rejected.</p><p>It is profoundly anti-democratic, and should not be tolerated under any circumstance. Treaties negotiated and agreed too without being worked on publicly, and without the direct involvement of both executive and legislative branches of government should be routinely trashed as a matter of principle. There is no issue so important that the underhanded methods being used here would ever be acceptable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On one hand , I see why a treaty like ACTA might be desirable to establish a common copyright law across all nations.That 's not desirable at all.Each nation should pursue the copyright policy , and enact the copyright laws , that serve its own people best .
This could be no copyright , or minimal copyright , or broad copyright , depending on the circumstances of each particular country .
The only international cooperation on copyright matters ought to be that various countries will work to ensure that whatever copyright laws , if any , each has , they are not mutually incompatible such that an author might have to choose between a copyright in Canada , or a copyright in China , being unable to get both due to some sort of technical issue.In the US , we should only enact copyright laws when doing so will promote the progress of science more than if we did not enact them , and then only to the extent that we enjoy the greatest public benefit for Americans .
This can include granting copyrights on works created by foreigners without concern for reciprocity by their country , since one of our goals is to encourage authors to create and publish works , wherever they 're from , and wherever they are working.There 's no reason for laws to be uniform , and in any event , it has helped get copyright laws in the fucked up state they are in now , and the various international agreements on the matter are significant obstacles to reforming the laws so that they can best serve the public interest.Other than some fetish for it , I just do n't see why anyone would want uniformity anyway.As for the treaty , the reason major copyright legislation is conducted by means of treaty , rather than in national legislatures , is so that there is no public debate .
The representatives of the people never have an opportunity to work out the details of the treaty according to the interests of their constituents .
Instead , executive branches agree to the treaty and either bind their countries to it directly , bypassing legislative bodies , or present it to the legislature as a fait accompli which can not be altered and which has too much riding on it to be rejected.It is profoundly anti-democratic , and should not be tolerated under any circumstance .
Treaties negotiated and agreed too without being worked on publicly , and without the direct involvement of both executive and legislative branches of government should be routinely trashed as a matter of principle .
There is no issue so important that the underhanded methods being used here would ever be acceptable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On one hand, I see why a treaty like ACTA might be desirable to establish a common copyright law across all nations.That's not desirable at all.Each nation should pursue the copyright policy, and enact the copyright laws, that serve its own people best.
This could be no copyright, or minimal copyright, or broad copyright, depending on the circumstances of each particular country.
The only international cooperation on copyright matters ought to be that various countries will work to ensure that whatever copyright laws, if any, each has, they are not mutually incompatible such that an author might have to choose between a copyright in Canada, or a copyright in China, being unable to get both due to some sort of technical issue.In the US, we should only enact copyright laws when doing so will promote the progress of science more than if we did not enact them, and then only to the extent that we enjoy the greatest public benefit for Americans.
This can include granting copyrights on works created by foreigners without concern for reciprocity by their country, since one of our goals is to encourage authors to create and publish works, wherever they're from, and wherever they are working.There's no reason for laws to be uniform, and in any event, it has helped get copyright laws in the fucked up state they are in now, and the various international agreements on the matter are significant obstacles to reforming the laws so that they can best serve the public interest.Other than some fetish for it, I just don't see why anyone would want uniformity anyway.As for the treaty, the reason major copyright legislation is conducted by means of treaty, rather than in national legislatures, is so that there is no public debate.
The representatives of the people never have an opportunity to work out the details of the treaty according to the interests of their constituents.
Instead, executive branches agree to the treaty and either bind their countries to it directly, bypassing legislative bodies, or present it to the legislature as a fait accompli which cannot be altered and which has too much riding on it to be rejected.It is profoundly anti-democratic, and should not be tolerated under any circumstance.
Treaties negotiated and agreed too without being worked on publicly, and without the direct involvement of both executive and legislative branches of government should be routinely trashed as a matter of principle.
There is no issue so important that the underhanded methods being used here would ever be acceptable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354146</id>
	<title>Re:The question is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260206520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry, but international politics is no different from national politics, the less light that is shown on the process the more mold that grows in the form of graft, theft, and one sided favoritism for the elites and their supporters. If the process can't hold up to scrutiny then it doesn't need to take place at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but international politics is no different from national politics , the less light that is shown on the process the more mold that grows in the form of graft , theft , and one sided favoritism for the elites and their supporters .
If the process ca n't hold up to scrutiny then it does n't need to take place at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but international politics is no different from national politics, the less light that is shown on the process the more mold that grows in the form of graft, theft, and one sided favoritism for the elites and their supporters.
If the process can't hold up to scrutiny then it doesn't need to take place at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353392</id>
	<title>The question is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260203220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it's an international treaty, then why is the secrecy a "national security" matter?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's an international treaty , then why is the secrecy a " national security " matter ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's an international treaty, then why is the secrecy a "national security" matter?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30363148</id>
	<title>Re:F*CKING BUSH!!!</title>
	<author>JAlexoi</author>
	<datestamp>1260268560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>US is US, nothing will "Change". Maybe only the beliefs in the change have grown<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>US is US , nothing will " Change " .
Maybe only the beliefs in the change have grown : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>US is US, nothing will "Change".
Maybe only the beliefs in the change have grown :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353830</id>
	<title>Re:Down with the Government</title>
	<author>locallyunscene</author>
	<datestamp>1260205200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with what you said. There are too many politicians in the whitehouse and congress and not enough civil-servants. Indeed, there are too many politicians in the state legislature, and with Palin as an example, there are often too many politicians running our towns too.
<br> <br>
The eternal question is, what is the solution?
<br> <br>
What's a real, and by real I mean enforceable and fair, way to keep "politicians" out of government? You can start a bloody revolution(most extreme example, I know there are degrees of "bloody" here) to overthrow the gov't, but how can you be sure the new guys that get there aren't politicians in disguise. And if they aren't how do you keep the "right" people in power?
<br> <br>
Democracy 2.0, politics without politicians, is a great tag line, but what does it actually consist of?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with what you said .
There are too many politicians in the whitehouse and congress and not enough civil-servants .
Indeed , there are too many politicians in the state legislature , and with Palin as an example , there are often too many politicians running our towns too .
The eternal question is , what is the solution ?
What 's a real , and by real I mean enforceable and fair , way to keep " politicians " out of government ?
You can start a bloody revolution ( most extreme example , I know there are degrees of " bloody " here ) to overthrow the gov't , but how can you be sure the new guys that get there are n't politicians in disguise .
And if they are n't how do you keep the " right " people in power ?
Democracy 2.0 , politics without politicians , is a great tag line , but what does it actually consist of ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with what you said.
There are too many politicians in the whitehouse and congress and not enough civil-servants.
Indeed, there are too many politicians in the state legislature, and with Palin as an example, there are often too many politicians running our towns too.
The eternal question is, what is the solution?
What's a real, and by real I mean enforceable and fair, way to keep "politicians" out of government?
You can start a bloody revolution(most extreme example, I know there are degrees of "bloody" here) to overthrow the gov't, but how can you be sure the new guys that get there aren't politicians in disguise.
And if they aren't how do you keep the "right" people in power?
Democracy 2.0, politics without politicians, is a great tag line, but what does it actually consist of?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30356692</id>
	<title>Re:Hard to see the redeeming qualities</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1260218280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Especially given how much copyright infringement is going on between nations and how hard it is to enforce laws nationally when the economy and the access is global.</p></div><p>From and international standpoint, who gives a crap? We have the Iranians building a bomb, two major wars, an ongoing threat of terrorist attacks, and the pirates of Somalia, global warming. I don't know about anyone else, but IMHO copyright should be pretty far down the list of international priorities right now. The reality outside the first world right now is basically open warfare. In fact, it is arguable that the world hasn't been this dangerous since the end of WWII. The terrorists, pirates, international drug gangs, arms smugglers, and the like don't give two-shits about copyright infringement, they are already looting and killing so we are <i>way</i> beyond polite at this point. This is going to be an interesting century (interesting as in the ancient Chinese curse), but not because a few copyrights get infringed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially given how much copyright infringement is going on between nations and how hard it is to enforce laws nationally when the economy and the access is global.From and international standpoint , who gives a crap ?
We have the Iranians building a bomb , two major wars , an ongoing threat of terrorist attacks , and the pirates of Somalia , global warming .
I do n't know about anyone else , but IMHO copyright should be pretty far down the list of international priorities right now .
The reality outside the first world right now is basically open warfare .
In fact , it is arguable that the world has n't been this dangerous since the end of WWII .
The terrorists , pirates , international drug gangs , arms smugglers , and the like do n't give two-shits about copyright infringement , they are already looting and killing so we are way beyond polite at this point .
This is going to be an interesting century ( interesting as in the ancient Chinese curse ) , but not because a few copyrights get infringed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Especially given how much copyright infringement is going on between nations and how hard it is to enforce laws nationally when the economy and the access is global.From and international standpoint, who gives a crap?
We have the Iranians building a bomb, two major wars, an ongoing threat of terrorist attacks, and the pirates of Somalia, global warming.
I don't know about anyone else, but IMHO copyright should be pretty far down the list of international priorities right now.
The reality outside the first world right now is basically open warfare.
In fact, it is arguable that the world hasn't been this dangerous since the end of WWII.
The terrorists, pirates, international drug gangs, arms smugglers, and the like don't give two-shits about copyright infringement, they are already looting and killing so we are way beyond polite at this point.
This is going to be an interesting century (interesting as in the ancient Chinese curse), but not because a few copyrights get infringed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354768</id>
	<title>Re:The question is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260208860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"A unilateral release of text by one trading partner would risk breaching the mutual trust that is important to successful trade negotiations."</p><p>This is nonsense.  Release the draft TEXT, don't release which trading partner proposed/supported/did not support/had views/didn't have views/had positions/didn't have positions about any aspect of it.  The text by itself should stand alone, as in "This is the text being considered by we and our international trading partners".  Not who.  And if any trading partner doesn't like the fact that the draft text will be released at the time that negotiations commence, fine, don't show up for the negotiations.  You might not be answerable to your citizens, but we are.</p><p>Of course, these people are probably afraid of the next logical step, which might be along the lines of "That's the stupidest !\%!$!#\% idea I've heard in a long time, and I'm writing my representative to voice my objections."  And if that's the real reason why they want to be so secretive about it, then it is even more reason to release it.</p><p>As other people have pointed out, it's a treaty about entertainment media, not a military treaty.  It's about industry and consumers.  Secrecy is not a necessity.  It might be desirable to avoid the effect of citizens voicing their concerns, because it will complicate things if during negotiations it is discovered that everyone back home hates the idea being proposed, but if so: too bad.  It's going to affect everyone from consumers to creators of printed, image, video, audio, and other media.  That's practically everyone on the planet that has ever written or recorded anything whether for money or not.  We have a right to know what rules we are going to be bound by if this thing goes through, and we have a right to influence it.  Any advantage of secret negotiations can't possibly be worth the sour attitude that people are going to naturally develop in democratic countries because of the secrecy.  So, release the fricking text or walk away from the table, because the terms for the negotiation process suck!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" A unilateral release of text by one trading partner would risk breaching the mutual trust that is important to successful trade negotiations .
" This is nonsense .
Release the draft TEXT , do n't release which trading partner proposed/supported/did not support/had views/did n't have views/had positions/did n't have positions about any aspect of it .
The text by itself should stand alone , as in " This is the text being considered by we and our international trading partners " .
Not who .
And if any trading partner does n't like the fact that the draft text will be released at the time that negotiations commence , fine , do n't show up for the negotiations .
You might not be answerable to your citizens , but we are.Of course , these people are probably afraid of the next logical step , which might be along the lines of " That 's the stupidest ! \ % ! $ ! # \ % idea I 've heard in a long time , and I 'm writing my representative to voice my objections .
" And if that 's the real reason why they want to be so secretive about it , then it is even more reason to release it.As other people have pointed out , it 's a treaty about entertainment media , not a military treaty .
It 's about industry and consumers .
Secrecy is not a necessity .
It might be desirable to avoid the effect of citizens voicing their concerns , because it will complicate things if during negotiations it is discovered that everyone back home hates the idea being proposed , but if so : too bad .
It 's going to affect everyone from consumers to creators of printed , image , video , audio , and other media .
That 's practically everyone on the planet that has ever written or recorded anything whether for money or not .
We have a right to know what rules we are going to be bound by if this thing goes through , and we have a right to influence it .
Any advantage of secret negotiations ca n't possibly be worth the sour attitude that people are going to naturally develop in democratic countries because of the secrecy .
So , release the fricking text or walk away from the table , because the terms for the negotiation process suck !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"A unilateral release of text by one trading partner would risk breaching the mutual trust that is important to successful trade negotiations.
"This is nonsense.
Release the draft TEXT, don't release which trading partner proposed/supported/did not support/had views/didn't have views/had positions/didn't have positions about any aspect of it.
The text by itself should stand alone, as in "This is the text being considered by we and our international trading partners".
Not who.
And if any trading partner doesn't like the fact that the draft text will be released at the time that negotiations commence, fine, don't show up for the negotiations.
You might not be answerable to your citizens, but we are.Of course, these people are probably afraid of the next logical step, which might be along the lines of "That's the stupidest !\%!$!#\% idea I've heard in a long time, and I'm writing my representative to voice my objections.
"  And if that's the real reason why they want to be so secretive about it, then it is even more reason to release it.As other people have pointed out, it's a treaty about entertainment media, not a military treaty.
It's about industry and consumers.
Secrecy is not a necessity.
It might be desirable to avoid the effect of citizens voicing their concerns, because it will complicate things if during negotiations it is discovered that everyone back home hates the idea being proposed, but if so: too bad.
It's going to affect everyone from consumers to creators of printed, image, video, audio, and other media.
That's practically everyone on the planet that has ever written or recorded anything whether for money or not.
We have a right to know what rules we are going to be bound by if this thing goes through, and we have a right to influence it.
Any advantage of secret negotiations can't possibly be worth the sour attitude that people are going to naturally develop in democratic countries because of the secrecy.
So, release the fricking text or walk away from the table, because the terms for the negotiation process suck!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30358440</id>
	<title>Re:The question is...</title>
	<author>temcat</author>
	<datestamp>1260184320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And I'd rather people talk than be forced out in the open and be silent.</i></p><p>In this case, they'd better be forced out in the open and be silent so that this treaty has no chance to happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I 'd rather people talk than be forced out in the open and be silent.In this case , they 'd better be forced out in the open and be silent so that this treaty has no chance to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I'd rather people talk than be forced out in the open and be silent.In this case, they'd better be forced out in the open and be silent so that this treaty has no chance to happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30355482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353568</id>
	<title>Contact Us</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260204060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/contact-us/your-comment</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.ustr.gov/about-us/contact-us/your-comment</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/contact-us/your-comment</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354270</id>
	<title>Re:The question is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260207060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(from the quote)</p><p><i>confidentiality in international negotiations among sovereign entities is the standard practice to enable officials to engage in frank exchanges of views, positions, and specific negotiating proposals</i></p><p>So in other words, they feel comfortable talking frankly and freely with other nation's representatives and the representatives of corporations, but not their voters?</p><p>Makes you think, doesn't it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( from the quote ) confidentiality in international negotiations among sovereign entities is the standard practice to enable officials to engage in frank exchanges of views , positions , and specific negotiating proposalsSo in other words , they feel comfortable talking frankly and freely with other nation 's representatives and the representatives of corporations , but not their voters ? Makes you think , does n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(from the quote)confidentiality in international negotiations among sovereign entities is the standard practice to enable officials to engage in frank exchanges of views, positions, and specific negotiating proposalsSo in other words, they feel comfortable talking frankly and freely with other nation's representatives and the representatives of corporations, but not their voters?Makes you think, doesn't it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354688</id>
	<title>Re:Down with the Government</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1260208560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Very eloquent indeed. In fact likely the most eloquent post I've read on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.. It reads like a speech. I can feel your voice booming with power. Each line holding the weight of your beliefs. It makes an embarrassment of my arguments. English major or just a romantic individual?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Very eloquent indeed .
In fact likely the most eloquent post I 've read on /.. It reads like a speech .
I can feel your voice booming with power .
Each line holding the weight of your beliefs .
It makes an embarrassment of my arguments .
English major or just a romantic individual ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very eloquent indeed.
In fact likely the most eloquent post I've read on /.. It reads like a speech.
I can feel your voice booming with power.
Each line holding the weight of your beliefs.
It makes an embarrassment of my arguments.
English major or just a romantic individual?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353474</id>
	<title>Should all treaties be public?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260203520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Should any draft treaty in Copenhagen be published as it goes, along with all views from all the parties and what they are willing to agree to or not through the negotiations?</p><p>As in any other area of life, this is yet another example of "when you want something then create moral laws that give it to you, but when those laws don't work in your favour then forget them".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should any draft treaty in Copenhagen be published as it goes , along with all views from all the parties and what they are willing to agree to or not through the negotiations ? As in any other area of life , this is yet another example of " when you want something then create moral laws that give it to you , but when those laws do n't work in your favour then forget them " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should any draft treaty in Copenhagen be published as it goes, along with all views from all the parties and what they are willing to agree to or not through the negotiations?As in any other area of life, this is yet another example of "when you want something then create moral laws that give it to you, but when those laws don't work in your favour then forget them".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353772</id>
	<title>Re:Some questions</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1260204960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Kirk says the treaty will be published when it is finished - how long does<br>&gt; the public have for filing responses and objections before the treaty<br>&gt; becomes law? What possibilities are there for modifications?</p><p>The point of the secrecy is to prevent modifications.  Once the governments all agree on a text it will be presented to the legislatures for ratification and implementation on an "all or nothing" basis, with the argument that "If you make any changes we'll have to go back and renegotiate the whole thing".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Kirk says the treaty will be published when it is finished - how long does &gt; the public have for filing responses and objections before the treaty &gt; becomes law ?
What possibilities are there for modifications ? The point of the secrecy is to prevent modifications .
Once the governments all agree on a text it will be presented to the legislatures for ratification and implementation on an " all or nothing " basis , with the argument that " If you make any changes we 'll have to go back and renegotiate the whole thing " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Kirk says the treaty will be published when it is finished - how long does&gt; the public have for filing responses and objections before the treaty&gt; becomes law?
What possibilities are there for modifications?The point of the secrecy is to prevent modifications.
Once the governments all agree on a text it will be presented to the legislatures for ratification and implementation on an "all or nothing" basis, with the argument that "If you make any changes we'll have to go back and renegotiate the whole thing".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30358848</id>
	<title>Re:F*CKING BUSH!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260186480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Woosh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Woosh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Woosh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30357900</id>
	<title>Re:The question is...</title>
	<author>ultranova</author>
	<datestamp>1260181200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I agree with you, however to play devil advocate, the only problem is that the people negociating are human being.</p></div> </blockquote><p>No, the problem is that the "people" negotiating are <em>not</em> human beings, but rather politicians and copyright holders.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you , however to play devil advocate , the only problem is that the people negociating are human being .
No , the problem is that the " people " negotiating are not human beings , but rather politicians and copyright holders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you, however to play devil advocate, the only problem is that the people negociating are human being.
No, the problem is that the "people" negotiating are not human beings, but rather politicians and copyright holders.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30355042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30357532</id>
	<title>Re:Well then</title>
	<author>AA Wulf</author>
	<datestamp>1260179280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>True...unless it isn't so abhorrent that politicians cannot survive being associated with it.  If it's a matter of foreign policy so important that the executive branch of the United States is actually pursuing negotiations with foreign powers to establish a treaty during a time when his popularity has been on the decline, then I would hazard to guess that there may be something worthwhile in the treaty.  <br> <br>I wonder who here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. has actually even considered for a moment what matters of foreign policy might warrant secrecy in establishing an international copyright treaty.  It would seem nations like the US would benefit the most from having copyright enforcement from outside nations such as China or Sweden.  I wonder what sorts of arrangements might be on the table in terms of lifting trade tariffs, etc. in exchange for more aggressive adherence to US copyright law.  I wonder how many politicians would be in an uproar over their leader lifting such tariffs or sanctions and such across the globe in order to protect our own creative endeavors and open up more trade opportunities with these nations.  How many would try to raise a huge public outcry against what would essentially be a good thing?  I can't imagine ANY reason why ANYONE could have a LEGIT reason to keep this under wraps.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>::eyeroll::</htmltext>
<tokenext>True...unless it is n't so abhorrent that politicians can not survive being associated with it .
If it 's a matter of foreign policy so important that the executive branch of the United States is actually pursuing negotiations with foreign powers to establish a treaty during a time when his popularity has been on the decline , then I would hazard to guess that there may be something worthwhile in the treaty .
I wonder who here on / .
has actually even considered for a moment what matters of foreign policy might warrant secrecy in establishing an international copyright treaty .
It would seem nations like the US would benefit the most from having copyright enforcement from outside nations such as China or Sweden .
I wonder what sorts of arrangements might be on the table in terms of lifting trade tariffs , etc .
in exchange for more aggressive adherence to US copyright law .
I wonder how many politicians would be in an uproar over their leader lifting such tariffs or sanctions and such across the globe in order to protect our own creative endeavors and open up more trade opportunities with these nations .
How many would try to raise a huge public outcry against what would essentially be a good thing ?
I ca n't imagine ANY reason why ANYONE could have a LEGIT reason to keep this under wraps .
: : eyeroll : :</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True...unless it isn't so abhorrent that politicians cannot survive being associated with it.
If it's a matter of foreign policy so important that the executive branch of the United States is actually pursuing negotiations with foreign powers to establish a treaty during a time when his popularity has been on the decline, then I would hazard to guess that there may be something worthwhile in the treaty.
I wonder who here on /.
has actually even considered for a moment what matters of foreign policy might warrant secrecy in establishing an international copyright treaty.
It would seem nations like the US would benefit the most from having copyright enforcement from outside nations such as China or Sweden.
I wonder what sorts of arrangements might be on the table in terms of lifting trade tariffs, etc.
in exchange for more aggressive adherence to US copyright law.
I wonder how many politicians would be in an uproar over their leader lifting such tariffs or sanctions and such across the globe in order to protect our own creative endeavors and open up more trade opportunities with these nations.
How many would try to raise a huge public outcry against what would essentially be a good thing?
I can't imagine ANY reason why ANYONE could have a LEGIT reason to keep this under wraps.
::eyeroll::</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30357590</id>
	<title>Re:What else scurries when the lights are turned o</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260179520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Perhaps it's better if we stopped the charade here.</p></div><p>Umm, I don't see a charade, but I do see an endless line-up of SlashDotters who haven't been doing their homework;</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Asian governments using Linux will be sued for IP violations, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said today in Singapore. He did not specify that Microsoft would be the company doing the suing, but it's difficult to read the claim as anything other than a declaration of IP war.</p><p>According to a Reuters report (which we fervently hope will produce one of Ballmer's fascinating 'I was misquoted' rebuttals*), Ballmer told Microsoft's Asian Government Leaders Forum that Linux violates more than 228 patents. Come on Steve, don't hold back - what you mean 'more than 228' - 229? 230? Don't pull your punches to soften the blow to the community. "Some day," he continued, "for all countries that are entering the WTO [World Trade Organization], somebody will come and look for money owing to the rights for that intellectual property."</p><p>This reference is possibly more interesting than the infringement number scare itself, because it suggests that Microsoft sees the wider implementation of corporation-friendly IP law that is part of the entry ticket to the WTO as being a weapon that can be used against software rivals. More commonly, getting WTO members to 'go legit' is viewed as having a payoff in terms of stamping out counterfeit CDs, DVDs and designer gear, but clearly Microsoft's lawyers are busily plotting ways to embrace and extend this to handy new fields. It could be used to throttle emergent OSS companies, and it could conceivably be used to take the new generation of US (and maybe EU too) anti digital piracy and IP laws global.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/18/ballmer\_linux\_lawsuits/" title="theregister.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Use Linux and you will be sued, Ballmer tells governments</a> [theregister.co.uk], Posted in Operating Systems, 18th November 2004 10:34 GMT</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps it 's better if we stopped the charade here.Umm , I do n't see a charade , but I do see an endless line-up of SlashDotters who have n't been doing their homework ; Asian governments using Linux will be sued for IP violations , Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said today in Singapore .
He did not specify that Microsoft would be the company doing the suing , but it 's difficult to read the claim as anything other than a declaration of IP war.According to a Reuters report ( which we fervently hope will produce one of Ballmer 's fascinating 'I was misquoted ' rebuttals * ) , Ballmer told Microsoft 's Asian Government Leaders Forum that Linux violates more than 228 patents .
Come on Steve , do n't hold back - what you mean 'more than 228 ' - 229 ?
230 ? Do n't pull your punches to soften the blow to the community .
" Some day , " he continued , " for all countries that are entering the WTO [ World Trade Organization ] , somebody will come and look for money owing to the rights for that intellectual property .
" This reference is possibly more interesting than the infringement number scare itself , because it suggests that Microsoft sees the wider implementation of corporation-friendly IP law that is part of the entry ticket to the WTO as being a weapon that can be used against software rivals .
More commonly , getting WTO members to 'go legit ' is viewed as having a payoff in terms of stamping out counterfeit CDs , DVDs and designer gear , but clearly Microsoft 's lawyers are busily plotting ways to embrace and extend this to handy new fields .
It could be used to throttle emergent OSS companies , and it could conceivably be used to take the new generation of US ( and maybe EU too ) anti digital piracy and IP laws global .
Use Linux and you will be sued , Ballmer tells governments [ theregister.co.uk ] , Posted in Operating Systems , 18th November 2004 10 : 34 GMT</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps it's better if we stopped the charade here.Umm, I don't see a charade, but I do see an endless line-up of SlashDotters who haven't been doing their homework;Asian governments using Linux will be sued for IP violations, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said today in Singapore.
He did not specify that Microsoft would be the company doing the suing, but it's difficult to read the claim as anything other than a declaration of IP war.According to a Reuters report (which we fervently hope will produce one of Ballmer's fascinating 'I was misquoted' rebuttals*), Ballmer told Microsoft's Asian Government Leaders Forum that Linux violates more than 228 patents.
Come on Steve, don't hold back - what you mean 'more than 228' - 229?
230? Don't pull your punches to soften the blow to the community.
"Some day," he continued, "for all countries that are entering the WTO [World Trade Organization], somebody will come and look for money owing to the rights for that intellectual property.
"This reference is possibly more interesting than the infringement number scare itself, because it suggests that Microsoft sees the wider implementation of corporation-friendly IP law that is part of the entry ticket to the WTO as being a weapon that can be used against software rivals.
More commonly, getting WTO members to 'go legit' is viewed as having a payoff in terms of stamping out counterfeit CDs, DVDs and designer gear, but clearly Microsoft's lawyers are busily plotting ways to embrace and extend this to handy new fields.
It could be used to throttle emergent OSS companies, and it could conceivably be used to take the new generation of US (and maybe EU too) anti digital piracy and IP laws global.
Use Linux and you will be sued, Ballmer tells governments [theregister.co.uk], Posted in Operating Systems, 18th November 2004 10:34 GMT
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30355482</id>
	<title>Re:The question is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260212160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sorry, but international politics is no different from national politics,</p> </div><p>Not really. Generally, Texans Senators re not worried that Californians are spying on them to steal trade secrets or are trying to use Austin as a beachhead for a full-blown invasion. This means that negotiations between national entities are far more complex: you know you can't be seen talking to the enemy, but at the same, you have to find a way to talk anyway. Why do you think that the Swiss Embassy is a popular stop-over for Iranian, Venezuelan and US officers?</p><p>Granted, your full quote makes sense - but unfortunately, there are a lot of forces at work in foreign relations that make secrecy a sine-qua-non condition for any talking happening at all. And I'd rather people talk than be forced out in the open and be silent.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but international politics is no different from national politics , Not really .
Generally , Texans Senators re not worried that Californians are spying on them to steal trade secrets or are trying to use Austin as a beachhead for a full-blown invasion .
This means that negotiations between national entities are far more complex : you know you ca n't be seen talking to the enemy , but at the same , you have to find a way to talk anyway .
Why do you think that the Swiss Embassy is a popular stop-over for Iranian , Venezuelan and US officers ? Granted , your full quote makes sense - but unfortunately , there are a lot of forces at work in foreign relations that make secrecy a sine-qua-non condition for any talking happening at all .
And I 'd rather people talk than be forced out in the open and be silent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but international politics is no different from national politics, Not really.
Generally, Texans Senators re not worried that Californians are spying on them to steal trade secrets or are trying to use Austin as a beachhead for a full-blown invasion.
This means that negotiations between national entities are far more complex: you know you can't be seen talking to the enemy, but at the same, you have to find a way to talk anyway.
Why do you think that the Swiss Embassy is a popular stop-over for Iranian, Venezuelan and US officers?Granted, your full quote makes sense - but unfortunately, there are a lot of forces at work in foreign relations that make secrecy a sine-qua-non condition for any talking happening at all.
And I'd rather people talk than be forced out in the open and be silent.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354114</id>
	<title>NO !!</title>
	<author>Weezul</author>
	<datestamp>1260206340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A common copyright law is fundamentally flawed.  Any laws regulating fast moving technologies need Thomas Jefferson's "Laboratories of Democracy".  If anything, we should pass a constitutional amendment giving the states the sole right to regulate copyrights and patents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A common copyright law is fundamentally flawed .
Any laws regulating fast moving technologies need Thomas Jefferson 's " Laboratories of Democracy " .
If anything , we should pass a constitutional amendment giving the states the sole right to regulate copyrights and patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A common copyright law is fundamentally flawed.
Any laws regulating fast moving technologies need Thomas Jefferson's "Laboratories of Democracy".
If anything, we should pass a constitutional amendment giving the states the sole right to regulate copyrights and patents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30359700</id>
	<title>Re:The question is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260191280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree that talking should be encouraged.  But secret talking <b>is</b> out in the open silence.  Everyone who is under the jurisdiction of these governments has a right to at least know what is about to be brought above their heads.</p><p>Governments do not need to exist (do trees have a form of government?). However, as long as humans don't trust each other for what ever reason, governments serve some purpose.  But running off on their own in secret, to make new ways to steal from (fines) an enslave (jail) their serfs is <b>not one of them</b> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that talking should be encouraged .
But secret talking is out in the open silence .
Everyone who is under the jurisdiction of these governments has a right to at least know what is about to be brought above their heads.Governments do not need to exist ( do trees have a form of government ? ) .
However , as long as humans do n't trust each other for what ever reason , governments serve some purpose .
But running off on their own in secret , to make new ways to steal from ( fines ) an enslave ( jail ) their serfs is not one of them</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that talking should be encouraged.
But secret talking is out in the open silence.
Everyone who is under the jurisdiction of these governments has a right to at least know what is about to be brought above their heads.Governments do not need to exist (do trees have a form of government?).
However, as long as humans don't trust each other for what ever reason, governments serve some purpose.
But running off on their own in secret, to make new ways to steal from (fines) an enslave (jail) their serfs is not one of them </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30355482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354318</id>
	<title>Re:Down with the Government</title>
	<author>tachyon</author>
	<datestamp>1260207240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow! A Libertarian on slashdot!  I never thought I would see the day.</p><p>I'm with you 100\% on that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow !
A Libertarian on slashdot !
I never thought I would see the day.I 'm with you 100 \ % on that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow!
A Libertarian on slashdot!
I never thought I would see the day.I'm with you 100\% on that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30357114</id>
	<title>Snow them under!</title>
	<author>mycroft16</author>
	<datestamp>1260176880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I say we all flood them with FOIA requests for the ACTA treaty. If enough people are sending in these requests, they'll have to cave in. Either that or it will tie their office up to the point where congress realizes that the people want to know and will haul Ambassador Kirk in and force the treaty into the open.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I say we all flood them with FOIA requests for the ACTA treaty .
If enough people are sending in these requests , they 'll have to cave in .
Either that or it will tie their office up to the point where congress realizes that the people want to know and will haul Ambassador Kirk in and force the treaty into the open .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say we all flood them with FOIA requests for the ACTA treaty.
If enough people are sending in these requests, they'll have to cave in.
Either that or it will tie their office up to the point where congress realizes that the people want to know and will haul Ambassador Kirk in and force the treaty into the open.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30355510</id>
	<title>Re:Down with the Government</title>
	<author>Improv</author>
	<datestamp>1260212280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're a patriotic cliche-spouting quack that would destroy society. So?</p><p>Sure, there are problems with corruption, much of it systemic. While you're calling it "stupidity and evil", other people are thinking about ways to fix it (try Lawrence Lessig, whose essays on corruption are quite insightful). Your notion of the state of things is deficient (Royalty? seriously? and our government actually does a lot of things pretty well), your notion of history is ignorant (the founding fathers had very serious disagreements with each other, had problems with corruption more severe than we have today, and the first government they made was even more lousy than the one we have today because it was far too decentralised).</p><p>A few criticisms of yours are appropriate, but what you want to do about them is utter rubbish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're a patriotic cliche-spouting quack that would destroy society .
So ? Sure , there are problems with corruption , much of it systemic .
While you 're calling it " stupidity and evil " , other people are thinking about ways to fix it ( try Lawrence Lessig , whose essays on corruption are quite insightful ) .
Your notion of the state of things is deficient ( Royalty ?
seriously ? and our government actually does a lot of things pretty well ) , your notion of history is ignorant ( the founding fathers had very serious disagreements with each other , had problems with corruption more severe than we have today , and the first government they made was even more lousy than the one we have today because it was far too decentralised ) .A few criticisms of yours are appropriate , but what you want to do about them is utter rubbish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're a patriotic cliche-spouting quack that would destroy society.
So?Sure, there are problems with corruption, much of it systemic.
While you're calling it "stupidity and evil", other people are thinking about ways to fix it (try Lawrence Lessig, whose essays on corruption are quite insightful).
Your notion of the state of things is deficient (Royalty?
seriously? and our government actually does a lot of things pretty well), your notion of history is ignorant (the founding fathers had very serious disagreements with each other, had problems with corruption more severe than we have today, and the first government they made was even more lousy than the one we have today because it was far too decentralised).A few criticisms of yours are appropriate, but what you want to do about them is utter rubbish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30355832</id>
	<title>Re:The question is...</title>
	<author>jez9999</author>
	<datestamp>1260213960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>international politics is no different from national politics, the less light that is shown on the process the more mold that grows</i></p><p>The more light you shine on something the more mold will grow.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>international politics is no different from national politics , the less light that is shown on the process the more mold that growsThe more light you shine on something the more mold will grow .
: -D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>international politics is no different from national politics, the less light that is shown on the process the more mold that growsThe more light you shine on something the more mold will grow.
:-D</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353906</id>
	<title>Re:The question is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260205440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not national security as such.  Here's the relevant excerpt from a statement from the USTR in response to the article (from the Wired article linked from TFA):<p><div class="quote"><p>The Administration also recognizes that confidentiality in international negotiations among sovereign entities is the standard practice to enable officials to engage in frank exchanges of views, positions, and specific negotiating proposals, and thereby facilitate the negotiation and compromise that are necessary to reach agreement on complex issues. A unilateral release of text by one trading partner would risk breaching the mutual trust that is important to successful trade negotiations.</p></div><p>International politics is an insanely complex and yet dreadfully boring game played by suits behind closed doors.  I'm not personally advocating secrecy, but welcome to the status quo.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not national security as such .
Here 's the relevant excerpt from a statement from the USTR in response to the article ( from the Wired article linked from TFA ) : The Administration also recognizes that confidentiality in international negotiations among sovereign entities is the standard practice to enable officials to engage in frank exchanges of views , positions , and specific negotiating proposals , and thereby facilitate the negotiation and compromise that are necessary to reach agreement on complex issues .
A unilateral release of text by one trading partner would risk breaching the mutual trust that is important to successful trade negotiations.International politics is an insanely complex and yet dreadfully boring game played by suits behind closed doors .
I 'm not personally advocating secrecy , but welcome to the status quo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not national security as such.
Here's the relevant excerpt from a statement from the USTR in response to the article (from the Wired article linked from TFA):The Administration also recognizes that confidentiality in international negotiations among sovereign entities is the standard practice to enable officials to engage in frank exchanges of views, positions, and specific negotiating proposals, and thereby facilitate the negotiation and compromise that are necessary to reach agreement on complex issues.
A unilateral release of text by one trading partner would risk breaching the mutual trust that is important to successful trade negotiations.International politics is an insanely complex and yet dreadfully boring game played by suits behind closed doors.
I'm not personally advocating secrecy, but welcome to the status quo.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353628</id>
	<title>Some questions</title>
	<author>Cacadril</author>
	<datestamp>1260204360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Kirk says the treaty will be published when it is finished - how long does the public have for filing responses and objections before the treaty becomes law?  What possibilities are there for modifications? If the public, or their congressmen, want a modification, must the treaty be renegotiated?

In what ways does ACTA affect national security?

What other nations insist on secrecy for "national security" reasons?

Who would walk away?

Why would they walk away?

Why is that bad?

How is this different from any other international treaty? What other treaties have been negotiated in secrecy and published when "finished"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kirk says the treaty will be published when it is finished - how long does the public have for filing responses and objections before the treaty becomes law ?
What possibilities are there for modifications ?
If the public , or their congressmen , want a modification , must the treaty be renegotiated ?
In what ways does ACTA affect national security ?
What other nations insist on secrecy for " national security " reasons ?
Who would walk away ?
Why would they walk away ?
Why is that bad ?
How is this different from any other international treaty ?
What other treaties have been negotiated in secrecy and published when " finished " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kirk says the treaty will be published when it is finished - how long does the public have for filing responses and objections before the treaty becomes law?
What possibilities are there for modifications?
If the public, or their congressmen, want a modification, must the treaty be renegotiated?
In what ways does ACTA affect national security?
What other nations insist on secrecy for "national security" reasons?
Who would walk away?
Why would they walk away?
Why is that bad?
How is this different from any other international treaty?
What other treaties have been negotiated in secrecy and published when "finished"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30358848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30359700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30355482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30355832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30362134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30355050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30356396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30356692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30355510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30355190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30357730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30356614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30355562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30370238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30355482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30357246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30356814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30358440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30355482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30357352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30358596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30357532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30357378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30357436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30355042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30355862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30356494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30357900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30355042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30362240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30363148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30357590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30361228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30356772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30356552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30363068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_1417209_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30362434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30355482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_1417209.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353474
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_1417209.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353772
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_1417209.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30362240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30356692
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_1417209.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354340
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30357246
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30356772
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30361228
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30358848
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30363148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_1417209.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353638
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_1417209.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30356814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353766
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30362134
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30358596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30355050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30356614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30355510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353830
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_1417209.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30357590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30357730
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_1417209.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_1417209.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353906
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354270
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30363068
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354424
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30356494
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354146
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30355482
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30370238
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30359700
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30362434
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30358440
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30356396
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30355832
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30356552
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30355042
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30357436
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30357900
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30355562
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30355862
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30355190
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30357352
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30357378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30354768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353550
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_1417209.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30353466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_1417209.30357532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
