<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_11_1534200</id>
	<title>Global Deforestation Demoed In Google Earth</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1260554760000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eldavojohn writes <i>"On Google's official blog, they claim a 'new technology prototype that enables <a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/seeing-forest-through-cloud.html">online, global-scale observation and measurement of changes in the earth's forests</a>.' Ars has <a href="http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/12/google-opens-satellite-images-tools-to-study-deforestation.ars">more details</a> on what Google unveiled at Copenhagen. If you have Google Earth installed, you can  <a href="http://portal.geo-fct.org/national-demonstrators/browser">find a demonstration here</a>.  <a href="http://www.google.org/forest-partners.html">Many organizations</a> and government agencies are on board with this initiative to put deforestation before the eyes of the public. If only satellite data of North America existed before the logging industry swept in!"</i> It's interesting to contemplate the implications for intelligence gathering of Google's automated tools to compare satellite photos.</htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " On Google 's official blog , they claim a 'new technology prototype that enables online , global-scale observation and measurement of changes in the earth 's forests .
' Ars has more details on what Google unveiled at Copenhagen .
If you have Google Earth installed , you can find a demonstration here .
Many organizations and government agencies are on board with this initiative to put deforestation before the eyes of the public .
If only satellite data of North America existed before the logging industry swept in !
" It 's interesting to contemplate the implications for intelligence gathering of Google 's automated tools to compare satellite photos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "On Google's official blog, they claim a 'new technology prototype that enables online, global-scale observation and measurement of changes in the earth's forests.
' Ars has more details on what Google unveiled at Copenhagen.
If you have Google Earth installed, you can  find a demonstration here.
Many organizations and government agencies are on board with this initiative to put deforestation before the eyes of the public.
If only satellite data of North America existed before the logging industry swept in!
" It's interesting to contemplate the implications for intelligence gathering of Google's automated tools to compare satellite photos.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30406134</id>
	<title>Re:Trees</title>
	<author>datapharmer</author>
	<datestamp>1260522360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>trees != forest.  Tree farms growing slash pine in rows for pulping don't create the same sort of environment as natural forests that have 300+ year old trees where the trees themselves have their own micro-ecosystems. Don't be ignorant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>trees ! = forest .
Tree farms growing slash pine in rows for pulping do n't create the same sort of environment as natural forests that have 300 + year old trees where the trees themselves have their own micro-ecosystems .
Do n't be ignorant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>trees != forest.
Tree farms growing slash pine in rows for pulping don't create the same sort of environment as natural forests that have 300+ year old trees where the trees themselves have their own micro-ecosystems.
Don't be ignorant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30408246</id>
	<title>Only logging and development?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260533460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if it will show the bark beetle losses in the western US?<br>http://solveclimate.com/blog/20090816/bark-beetle-infestation-offers-warning-delicate-workings-climate-disruption</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if it will show the bark beetle losses in the western US ? http : //solveclimate.com/blog/20090816/bark-beetle-infestation-offers-warning-delicate-workings-climate-disruption</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if it will show the bark beetle losses in the western US?http://solveclimate.com/blog/20090816/bark-beetle-infestation-offers-warning-delicate-workings-climate-disruption</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405032</id>
	<title>Re:Oregon</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1260560220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The only difference is we have 15\% unemployment and we can't cut and replant trees to actually make a living"</p><p>what does that mean?</p><p>Also, forest fires don't burn down forests.</p><p>"Every time we cut one tree down, we plant 3 to 10 more of them."</p><p>Cite needed.</p><p>"They only talk about it out west where we have plenty of trees to go around."<br>there is a reason for that, it's called 'shifting baseline'. Basically  it mean that people who grow up where there aren't trees have no reference to go by to realize there should be trees.</p><p>In Oregon people cans ee the fantastic forests, and when they start to diminish they say something.</p><p>Careful citing logging industry stats, they ahve a tendency to be massively incorrect.</p><p>For example, According to the Labor dept.there are only about 8000 worker in the logging industry, but they would have you believe there are 100K +.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The only difference is we have 15 \ % unemployment and we ca n't cut and replant trees to actually make a living " what does that mean ? Also , forest fires do n't burn down forests .
" Every time we cut one tree down , we plant 3 to 10 more of them .
" Cite needed .
" They only talk about it out west where we have plenty of trees to go around .
" there is a reason for that , it 's called 'shifting baseline' .
Basically it mean that people who grow up where there are n't trees have no reference to go by to realize there should be trees.In Oregon people cans ee the fantastic forests , and when they start to diminish they say something.Careful citing logging industry stats , they ahve a tendency to be massively incorrect.For example , According to the Labor dept.there are only about 8000 worker in the logging industry , but they would have you believe there are 100K + .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The only difference is we have 15\% unemployment and we can't cut and replant trees to actually make a living"what does that mean?Also, forest fires don't burn down forests.
"Every time we cut one tree down, we plant 3 to 10 more of them.
"Cite needed.
"They only talk about it out west where we have plenty of trees to go around.
"there is a reason for that, it's called 'shifting baseline'.
Basically  it mean that people who grow up where there aren't trees have no reference to go by to realize there should be trees.In Oregon people cans ee the fantastic forests, and when they start to diminish they say something.Careful citing logging industry stats, they ahve a tendency to be massively incorrect.For example, According to the Labor dept.there are only about 8000 worker in the logging industry, but they would have you believe there are 100K +.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405850</id>
	<title>Re:North American Reforestation.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260563940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Indeed, Americans have been catching something of a break as they have planted so many trees that North America would be a net carbon sink, if they didn't also drive so many cars.</p></div><p>To me that sounds like "Americans have recently planted a lot of trees, but not enough to make up for their car emissions."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , Americans have been catching something of a break as they have planted so many trees that North America would be a net carbon sink , if they did n't also drive so many cars.To me that sounds like " Americans have recently planted a lot of trees , but not enough to make up for their car emissions .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, Americans have been catching something of a break as they have planted so many trees that North America would be a net carbon sink, if they didn't also drive so many cars.To me that sounds like "Americans have recently planted a lot of trees, but not enough to make up for their car emissions.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405540</id>
	<title>Re:North American Reforestation.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1260562500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That said, it's not like planting trees in the US will compensate for the rainforest's loss. Thats like saying poking holes in your body make up for the loss of your lungs.</i></p><p>Planting trees in the USA could compensate for the rainforest loss, if we did indeed plant enough. This would be a massive terraforming project in the Southwestern USA, for sure, but, it certainly could be done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That said , it 's not like planting trees in the US will compensate for the rainforest 's loss .
Thats like saying poking holes in your body make up for the loss of your lungs.Planting trees in the USA could compensate for the rainforest loss , if we did indeed plant enough .
This would be a massive terraforming project in the Southwestern USA , for sure , but , it certainly could be done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That said, it's not like planting trees in the US will compensate for the rainforest's loss.
Thats like saying poking holes in your body make up for the loss of your lungs.Planting trees in the USA could compensate for the rainforest loss, if we did indeed plant enough.
This would be a massive terraforming project in the Southwestern USA, for sure, but, it certainly could be done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30406554</id>
	<title>Re:Trees</title>
	<author>Ziest</author>
	<datestamp>1260524220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bullshit. Cite your references</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit .
Cite your references</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit.
Cite your references</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30414482</id>
	<title>Couple of points</title>
	<author>RogueWarrior65</author>
	<datestamp>1260637440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Point #1: I can simulate anything in Google Earth too.  Hell, Hollywood does it all the time.  Doesn't mean it can or will happen.  #2: Assuming that the premise is accurate then I submit to you that THERE is the reason for global CO2 levels rising because less carbon is being stored in trees because there are fewer trees.  Who has been cutting down forests like crazy in the last 15 years or so?  South America.  #3: turning forest land into farm land is nothing new and it often reverses.  Case in point, upstate New York has millions of acres of what was once farm land as is evidenced by stone walls everywhere.  Walls don't happen by themselves.  18th century farmers cut down the forest and moved the rocks to make crop and grazing land.  Now, much of that has been abandoned and is returning back to forests.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Point # 1 : I can simulate anything in Google Earth too .
Hell , Hollywood does it all the time .
Does n't mean it can or will happen .
# 2 : Assuming that the premise is accurate then I submit to you that THERE is the reason for global CO2 levels rising because less carbon is being stored in trees because there are fewer trees .
Who has been cutting down forests like crazy in the last 15 years or so ?
South America .
# 3 : turning forest land into farm land is nothing new and it often reverses .
Case in point , upstate New York has millions of acres of what was once farm land as is evidenced by stone walls everywhere .
Walls do n't happen by themselves .
18th century farmers cut down the forest and moved the rocks to make crop and grazing land .
Now , much of that has been abandoned and is returning back to forests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Point #1: I can simulate anything in Google Earth too.
Hell, Hollywood does it all the time.
Doesn't mean it can or will happen.
#2: Assuming that the premise is accurate then I submit to you that THERE is the reason for global CO2 levels rising because less carbon is being stored in trees because there are fewer trees.
Who has been cutting down forests like crazy in the last 15 years or so?
South America.
#3: turning forest land into farm land is nothing new and it often reverses.
Case in point, upstate New York has millions of acres of what was once farm land as is evidenced by stone walls everywhere.
Walls don't happen by themselves.
18th century farmers cut down the forest and moved the rocks to make crop and grazing land.
Now, much of that has been abandoned and is returning back to forests.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405452</id>
	<title>Re:Trees</title>
	<author>ksd1337</author>
	<datestamp>1260562080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That may be, but the species diversity of the trees planted has to be taken into account as well. 8 trees of a different species each are more valuable to the ecosystem than 220 trees of only 2 or 3 different species.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That may be , but the species diversity of the trees planted has to be taken into account as well .
8 trees of a different species each are more valuable to the ecosystem than 220 trees of only 2 or 3 different species .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That may be, but the species diversity of the trees planted has to be taken into account as well.
8 trees of a different species each are more valuable to the ecosystem than 220 trees of only 2 or 3 different species.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30406308</id>
	<title>Re:Trees</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260523320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/slides/Trend-data/Web\%20Historic\%20Spreadsheets/1977\_2002\_Live\_trees\_dbh.xls</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.fia.fs.fed.us/slides/Trend-data/Web \ % 20Historic \ % 20Spreadsheets/1977 \ _2002 \ _Live \ _trees \ _dbh.xls</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/slides/Trend-data/Web\%20Historic\%20Spreadsheets/1977\_2002\_Live\_trees\_dbh.xls</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698</id>
	<title>Trees</title>
	<author>arizwebfoot</author>
	<datestamp>1260558840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interestingly, before the white man appeared in North America, there were an average of 8 trees per acre and now there are an average of 220 trees per acre in the US alone.</p><p>Just saying...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interestingly , before the white man appeared in North America , there were an average of 8 trees per acre and now there are an average of 220 trees per acre in the US alone.Just saying.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interestingly, before the white man appeared in North America, there were an average of 8 trees per acre and now there are an average of 220 trees per acre in the US alone.Just saying...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404824</id>
	<title>oh jeez....</title>
	<author>gandhi\_2</author>
	<datestamp>1260559500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If only satellite data of North America existed before the logging industry swept in!</p></div><p>If you look at North America, the forests didn't disappear because of logging, suburbia expanded into, through, and right past the forests. Population growth will destroy every inch of nature.</p><p>But by all means, blame the "evil logging industry" like you don't use paper or live in a building that required wood or space to build it. And if you had over 2 kids, it really is YOUR fault.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If only satellite data of North America existed before the logging industry swept in ! If you look at North America , the forests did n't disappear because of logging , suburbia expanded into , through , and right past the forests .
Population growth will destroy every inch of nature.But by all means , blame the " evil logging industry " like you do n't use paper or live in a building that required wood or space to build it .
And if you had over 2 kids , it really is YOUR fault .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only satellite data of North America existed before the logging industry swept in!If you look at North America, the forests didn't disappear because of logging, suburbia expanded into, through, and right past the forests.
Population growth will destroy every inch of nature.But by all means, blame the "evil logging industry" like you don't use paper or live in a building that required wood or space to build it.
And if you had over 2 kids, it really is YOUR fault.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30406170</id>
	<title>Re:Oregon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260522660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simply counting the numbers of trees misses the point somewhat. An area of farmed forest is vastly different than a natural, old-growth forest. The unique ecosystems that develop in old-growth forests don't get replicated in managed, farmed forests. Maybe it evens out in terms of carbon footprint and CO2 emissions, but it certainly doesn't measure up in terms of biodiversity. The logging industry doesn't take heat from most people for using farmed forests, they get heat for having virtually eliminated old-growth redwood forests and the assocaited habitats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simply counting the numbers of trees misses the point somewhat .
An area of farmed forest is vastly different than a natural , old-growth forest .
The unique ecosystems that develop in old-growth forests do n't get replicated in managed , farmed forests .
Maybe it evens out in terms of carbon footprint and CO2 emissions , but it certainly does n't measure up in terms of biodiversity .
The logging industry does n't take heat from most people for using farmed forests , they get heat for having virtually eliminated old-growth redwood forests and the assocaited habitats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simply counting the numbers of trees misses the point somewhat.
An area of farmed forest is vastly different than a natural, old-growth forest.
The unique ecosystems that develop in old-growth forests don't get replicated in managed, farmed forests.
Maybe it evens out in terms of carbon footprint and CO2 emissions, but it certainly doesn't measure up in terms of biodiversity.
The logging industry doesn't take heat from most people for using farmed forests, they get heat for having virtually eliminated old-growth redwood forests and the assocaited habitats.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30407490</id>
	<title>Re:Oregon</title>
	<author>hyades1</author>
	<datestamp>1260528900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> And there's people who use toothpicks, too.  Shouldn't they also count as employees of the logging industry? </p><p> Hey, whatever boosts your stats or makes a pretty picture, I'm all for it.  Real numbers are for pussies. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And there 's people who use toothpicks , too .
Should n't they also count as employees of the logging industry ?
Hey , whatever boosts your stats or makes a pretty picture , I 'm all for it .
Real numbers are for pussies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> And there's people who use toothpicks, too.
Shouldn't they also count as employees of the logging industry?
Hey, whatever boosts your stats or makes a pretty picture, I'm all for it.
Real numbers are for pussies. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30407280</id>
	<title>Re:Trees</title>
	<author>EvilBudMan</author>
	<datestamp>1260527640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Citation, please? 220 don't sound right. Even 8 seems like a lot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Citation , please ?
220 do n't sound right .
Even 8 seems like a lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Citation, please?
220 don't sound right.
Even 8 seems like a lot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404772</id>
	<title>Re:Trees</title>
	<author>AlphaBit</author>
	<datestamp>1260559200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly, the logging industry (as related to paper production) uses farmed trees.  This means that the paper/logging industry has led to an <em>increase</em> in the number of trees growing in North America, while at the same time no longer contributing to deforestation.  I believe almost all of our paper comes from these farmed trees.<br>
<br>
Of course, increased forest cover could be just as bad as decreased forest cover.  It's more about balance than maximization.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly , the logging industry ( as related to paper production ) uses farmed trees .
This means that the paper/logging industry has led to an increase in the number of trees growing in North America , while at the same time no longer contributing to deforestation .
I believe almost all of our paper comes from these farmed trees .
Of course , increased forest cover could be just as bad as decreased forest cover .
It 's more about balance than maximization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly, the logging industry (as related to paper production) uses farmed trees.
This means that the paper/logging industry has led to an increase in the number of trees growing in North America, while at the same time no longer contributing to deforestation.
I believe almost all of our paper comes from these farmed trees.
Of course, increased forest cover could be just as bad as decreased forest cover.
It's more about balance than maximization.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405008</id>
	<title>Re:Oregon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260560160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here in the Wash DC area, we cut down woods for housing developments and new highways.  Clearing away acres of woods, and then replanting a dozen or so new trees here and there, doesn't mean we have more forests.  I'm glad that trees are being replanted, but I think people are playing around with the definition of what constitutes a "forest".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here in the Wash DC area , we cut down woods for housing developments and new highways .
Clearing away acres of woods , and then replanting a dozen or so new trees here and there , does n't mean we have more forests .
I 'm glad that trees are being replanted , but I think people are playing around with the definition of what constitutes a " forest " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here in the Wash DC area, we cut down woods for housing developments and new highways.
Clearing away acres of woods, and then replanting a dozen or so new trees here and there, doesn't mean we have more forests.
I'm glad that trees are being replanted, but I think people are playing around with the definition of what constitutes a "forest".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405812</id>
	<title>Re:North American Reforestation.</title>
	<author>MikeV</author>
	<datestamp>1260563760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most if not nearly all of the dry weight of trees is carbon. As the tree grows, it increases weight, which is carbon. There is a portion of the carbon that cycles as the tree loses and grows leaves, but the benefit is in the sequestering of the carbon in it's woody structure that will remain sequestered for centuries if not millennia. If the tree falls down and rots, the released carbon will get re-sequestered in the wood of the seedlings that will replace that tree. If the tree is cut down and milled into lumber, that is countless tons of carbon sequestered within the very walls of the homes we reside in - some lasting for decades, others for hundreds of years. Scrap from construction as well as from demolished homes that get stuffed into a landfill will remain there without noticeable decomposition for centuries. We may not be balancing out the carbon released from coal fired power plants and vehicles and, of course, from natural phenomena that releases the lions share of carbon, but the forestry cycle and increasing forested is helping at least and certainly not hurting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most if not nearly all of the dry weight of trees is carbon .
As the tree grows , it increases weight , which is carbon .
There is a portion of the carbon that cycles as the tree loses and grows leaves , but the benefit is in the sequestering of the carbon in it 's woody structure that will remain sequestered for centuries if not millennia .
If the tree falls down and rots , the released carbon will get re-sequestered in the wood of the seedlings that will replace that tree .
If the tree is cut down and milled into lumber , that is countless tons of carbon sequestered within the very walls of the homes we reside in - some lasting for decades , others for hundreds of years .
Scrap from construction as well as from demolished homes that get stuffed into a landfill will remain there without noticeable decomposition for centuries .
We may not be balancing out the carbon released from coal fired power plants and vehicles and , of course , from natural phenomena that releases the lions share of carbon , but the forestry cycle and increasing forested is helping at least and certainly not hurting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most if not nearly all of the dry weight of trees is carbon.
As the tree grows, it increases weight, which is carbon.
There is a portion of the carbon that cycles as the tree loses and grows leaves, but the benefit is in the sequestering of the carbon in it's woody structure that will remain sequestered for centuries if not millennia.
If the tree falls down and rots, the released carbon will get re-sequestered in the wood of the seedlings that will replace that tree.
If the tree is cut down and milled into lumber, that is countless tons of carbon sequestered within the very walls of the homes we reside in - some lasting for decades, others for hundreds of years.
Scrap from construction as well as from demolished homes that get stuffed into a landfill will remain there without noticeable decomposition for centuries.
We may not be balancing out the carbon released from coal fired power plants and vehicles and, of course, from natural phenomena that releases the lions share of carbon, but the forestry cycle and increasing forested is helping at least and certainly not hurting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404962</id>
	<title>Can the demo this?</title>
	<author>dwiget001</author>
	<datestamp>1260559980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The global systematic destruction of human rights in so-called democracies or republics?</p><p>That would be a much more telling demo, I am quite certain.</p><p>Or, even better, the systematic economic destruction being done by central banks and the IMF?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The global systematic destruction of human rights in so-called democracies or republics ? That would be a much more telling demo , I am quite certain.Or , even better , the systematic economic destruction being done by central banks and the IMF ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The global systematic destruction of human rights in so-called democracies or republics?That would be a much more telling demo, I am quite certain.Or, even better, the systematic economic destruction being done by central banks and the IMF?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30408888</id>
	<title>Re:Trees</title>
	<author>pixie.pt</author>
	<datestamp>1260536940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Out of curiosity where this numbers come from?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Out of curiosity where this numbers come from ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Out of curiosity where this numbers come from?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30408056</id>
	<title>Re:Trees</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1260532200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm glad the natives cataloged these statistics for us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad the natives cataloged these statistics for us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad the natives cataloged these statistics for us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405090</id>
	<title>Re:North American Reforestation.</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1260560460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Trees don't remove CO2 from the atmosphere in any permanant way.</p><p>Half the CO2 the take in during the day is put back out at night, and the rotting foliage put it's CO2 back into the air.</p><p>That said, it's not like planting trees in the US will compensate for the rainforest's loss. Thats like saying poking holes in your body make up for the loss of your lungs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trees do n't remove CO2 from the atmosphere in any permanant way.Half the CO2 the take in during the day is put back out at night , and the rotting foliage put it 's CO2 back into the air.That said , it 's not like planting trees in the US will compensate for the rainforest 's loss .
Thats like saying poking holes in your body make up for the loss of your lungs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trees don't remove CO2 from the atmosphere in any permanant way.Half the CO2 the take in during the day is put back out at night, and the rotting foliage put it's CO2 back into the air.That said, it's not like planting trees in the US will compensate for the rainforest's loss.
Thats like saying poking holes in your body make up for the loss of your lungs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405334</id>
	<title>Re:Demoed?</title>
	<author>smashin234</author>
	<datestamp>1260561480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Smokey the Bear campaign still lives, although its much more minor today then it used to be.  The reason is that forest fires are bad that are not planned out in advance...You see our Forestry department (which my father worked for) started their own fires to clear out fire causing underbrush, and to create fire breaks so to speak back in the day.  They today also use controlled burning to further help forests along, but never do they want people to start fires....You insinuated that in your comment, and uncontrolled fires are fought very aggressively and to this day fire-fighters for the forestry department lose their lives to protect people from these fires.</p><p>There is no catastrophe as you say, and the rule is that they still fight fires to prevent them from getting too large.  The reason being none other then the fact that if the fire gets too large it destroys the ecosystem whereas a smaller fire will simply plant the seeds for a new stronger and vibrant forest.</p><p>Yellowstone is also a case in point of a catastrophe, but that thought is now in the past and today fires and their benefits to nature are more understood.  You find more issues with fires when people plant plants that are not native to the area, a drought occurs, and of course its prime material for a large fire around civilization.  We hear about this all the time in California....</p><p>The bigger issue in Oregon and Washington is the remnants of old logging camps that left underbrush so thick that forests couldn't come back.  Over the years, this has been burnt off or otherwise cleared out to make way for new forests....That is the largest issue in Oregon is bringing back those old areas that to this day are still remnants of lumbering practices back before Teddy R....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Smokey the Bear campaign still lives , although its much more minor today then it used to be .
The reason is that forest fires are bad that are not planned out in advance...You see our Forestry department ( which my father worked for ) started their own fires to clear out fire causing underbrush , and to create fire breaks so to speak back in the day .
They today also use controlled burning to further help forests along , but never do they want people to start fires....You insinuated that in your comment , and uncontrolled fires are fought very aggressively and to this day fire-fighters for the forestry department lose their lives to protect people from these fires.There is no catastrophe as you say , and the rule is that they still fight fires to prevent them from getting too large .
The reason being none other then the fact that if the fire gets too large it destroys the ecosystem whereas a smaller fire will simply plant the seeds for a new stronger and vibrant forest.Yellowstone is also a case in point of a catastrophe , but that thought is now in the past and today fires and their benefits to nature are more understood .
You find more issues with fires when people plant plants that are not native to the area , a drought occurs , and of course its prime material for a large fire around civilization .
We hear about this all the time in California....The bigger issue in Oregon and Washington is the remnants of old logging camps that left underbrush so thick that forests could n't come back .
Over the years , this has been burnt off or otherwise cleared out to make way for new forests....That is the largest issue in Oregon is bringing back those old areas that to this day are still remnants of lumbering practices back before Teddy R... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Smokey the Bear campaign still lives, although its much more minor today then it used to be.
The reason is that forest fires are bad that are not planned out in advance...You see our Forestry department (which my father worked for) started their own fires to clear out fire causing underbrush, and to create fire breaks so to speak back in the day.
They today also use controlled burning to further help forests along, but never do they want people to start fires....You insinuated that in your comment, and uncontrolled fires are fought very aggressively and to this day fire-fighters for the forestry department lose their lives to protect people from these fires.There is no catastrophe as you say, and the rule is that they still fight fires to prevent them from getting too large.
The reason being none other then the fact that if the fire gets too large it destroys the ecosystem whereas a smaller fire will simply plant the seeds for a new stronger and vibrant forest.Yellowstone is also a case in point of a catastrophe, but that thought is now in the past and today fires and their benefits to nature are more understood.
You find more issues with fires when people plant plants that are not native to the area, a drought occurs, and of course its prime material for a large fire around civilization.
We hear about this all the time in California....The bigger issue in Oregon and Washington is the remnants of old logging camps that left underbrush so thick that forests couldn't come back.
Over the years, this has been burnt off or otherwise cleared out to make way for new forests....That is the largest issue in Oregon is bringing back those old areas that to this day are still remnants of lumbering practices back before Teddy R....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30457416</id>
	<title>Google's rapaciousness disguised as "good deeds"</title>
	<author>nsapc3f</author>
	<datestamp>1259682240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I won't call this evil but its certainly not a good trend even if Google's surface intentions are benign and even altruistic.</p><p>Google wants all the data in their system, in their format and for you to only use their tools.  It's a big roach motel.  Granted the company is solvent and isn't going anywhere but it appears that once you move your stuff into the Google cloud you can only work with it through their API/interface.  I'd much rather see this data being offered and hosted in industry standard formats, run with whatever tool you want on that data because its accessible through a file system paradigm - native client, WxS services, mapreduce, whatever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wo n't call this evil but its certainly not a good trend even if Google 's surface intentions are benign and even altruistic.Google wants all the data in their system , in their format and for you to only use their tools .
It 's a big roach motel .
Granted the company is solvent and is n't going anywhere but it appears that once you move your stuff into the Google cloud you can only work with it through their API/interface .
I 'd much rather see this data being offered and hosted in industry standard formats , run with whatever tool you want on that data because its accessible through a file system paradigm - native client , WxS services , mapreduce , whatever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I won't call this evil but its certainly not a good trend even if Google's surface intentions are benign and even altruistic.Google wants all the data in their system, in their format and for you to only use their tools.
It's a big roach motel.
Granted the company is solvent and isn't going anywhere but it appears that once you move your stuff into the Google cloud you can only work with it through their API/interface.
I'd much rather see this data being offered and hosted in industry standard formats, run with whatever tool you want on that data because its accessible through a file system paradigm - native client, WxS services, mapreduce, whatever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404758</id>
	<title>Re:Trees</title>
	<author>rfelsburg</author>
	<datestamp>1260559140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Damn White men, always putting trees where they don't belong. Honestly, planting trees, what's wrong with you!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn White men , always putting trees where they do n't belong .
Honestly , planting trees , what 's wrong with you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn White men, always putting trees where they don't belong.
Honestly, planting trees, what's wrong with you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30410092</id>
	<title>championsgold</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260545460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are two ways to get <a href="http://www.championsgold.com/" title="championsgold.com" rel="nofollow">champions gold</a> [championsgold.com].<br>One is by completing the tasks to get a small amount of <a href="http://www.championsgold.com/" title="championsgold.com" rel="nofollow">champions online gold</a> [championsgold.com].<br>Another is by using money to buy <a href="http://www.championsgold.com/" title="championsgold.com" rel="nofollow">buy champions gold</a> [championsgold.com].<br>If you do not know how to buy <a href="http://www.championsgold.com/" title="championsgold.com" rel="nofollow">cheap champions gold</a> [championsgold.com],<br>you can ask other players how to get <a href="http://www.championsgold.com/" title="championsgold.com" rel="nofollow">champions money</a> [championsgold.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are two ways to get champions gold [ championsgold.com ] .One is by completing the tasks to get a small amount of champions online gold [ championsgold.com ] .Another is by using money to buy buy champions gold [ championsgold.com ] .If you do not know how to buy cheap champions gold [ championsgold.com ] ,you can ask other players how to get champions money [ championsgold.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are two ways to get champions gold [championsgold.com].One is by completing the tasks to get a small amount of champions online gold [championsgold.com].Another is by using money to buy buy champions gold [championsgold.com].If you do not know how to buy cheap champions gold [championsgold.com],you can ask other players how to get champions money [championsgold.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405780</id>
	<title>Re:Oregon</title>
	<author>fwarren</author>
	<datestamp>1260563580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What does it mean?</p><p>It means that when the big "spotted owl" controversy of the early 90's happened and the temporary injunctions on logging went into place, logging stopped and mills shut down.</p><p>If the mills had not shut down and went out of business due to the lack of trees and those mills were still in place, we would have an unemployment rate down below 5\%.</p><p>I am going to college to improve my skills. Almost everyone else there over the age of 30 is someone who has lost their job due to layoffs in the logging industry due to reductions in logging OR are people who were loggers, lost their jobs 10, 15 or 20 years ago, were retrained in some other professions and lost those jobs due to the market.</p><p>I am not going to spend an hour googling out reports, old articles, etc. When I make a statement like "most users I have introduced to linux like it better than windows", it is a statement of personal experience and may not apply elsewhere or is a good indicator that Microsoft will die overnight.</p><p>However, when I say back in 1989 the town I lived in had 4 mills, and between 1989 and 1994 that number dropped to 1 mill and that it was related directly to the ban on logging related to the "spotted owl" nonsense. That is a different story. I don't feel compelled to prove there were 4 mills.</p><p>There are more than 8000 workers in the logging industry. It is not just people cutting down trees (loggers). The trukers who haul those trees. It is all the mill workers who cut the wood, the workers who keep the equipment going, etc. It is why we refer to it as "The Timber Industry"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What does it mean ? It means that when the big " spotted owl " controversy of the early 90 's happened and the temporary injunctions on logging went into place , logging stopped and mills shut down.If the mills had not shut down and went out of business due to the lack of trees and those mills were still in place , we would have an unemployment rate down below 5 \ % .I am going to college to improve my skills .
Almost everyone else there over the age of 30 is someone who has lost their job due to layoffs in the logging industry due to reductions in logging OR are people who were loggers , lost their jobs 10 , 15 or 20 years ago , were retrained in some other professions and lost those jobs due to the market.I am not going to spend an hour googling out reports , old articles , etc .
When I make a statement like " most users I have introduced to linux like it better than windows " , it is a statement of personal experience and may not apply elsewhere or is a good indicator that Microsoft will die overnight.However , when I say back in 1989 the town I lived in had 4 mills , and between 1989 and 1994 that number dropped to 1 mill and that it was related directly to the ban on logging related to the " spotted owl " nonsense .
That is a different story .
I do n't feel compelled to prove there were 4 mills.There are more than 8000 workers in the logging industry .
It is not just people cutting down trees ( loggers ) .
The trukers who haul those trees .
It is all the mill workers who cut the wood , the workers who keep the equipment going , etc .
It is why we refer to it as " The Timber Industry "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does it mean?It means that when the big "spotted owl" controversy of the early 90's happened and the temporary injunctions on logging went into place, logging stopped and mills shut down.If the mills had not shut down and went out of business due to the lack of trees and those mills were still in place, we would have an unemployment rate down below 5\%.I am going to college to improve my skills.
Almost everyone else there over the age of 30 is someone who has lost their job due to layoffs in the logging industry due to reductions in logging OR are people who were loggers, lost their jobs 10, 15 or 20 years ago, were retrained in some other professions and lost those jobs due to the market.I am not going to spend an hour googling out reports, old articles, etc.
When I make a statement like "most users I have introduced to linux like it better than windows", it is a statement of personal experience and may not apply elsewhere or is a good indicator that Microsoft will die overnight.However, when I say back in 1989 the town I lived in had 4 mills, and between 1989 and 1994 that number dropped to 1 mill and that it was related directly to the ban on logging related to the "spotted owl" nonsense.
That is a different story.
I don't feel compelled to prove there were 4 mills.There are more than 8000 workers in the logging industry.
It is not just people cutting down trees (loggers).
The trukers who haul those trees.
It is all the mill workers who cut the wood, the workers who keep the equipment going, etc.
It is why we refer to it as "The Timber Industry"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404636</id>
	<title>soooo</title>
	<author>Sunda666</author>
	<datestamp>1260558600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no need for satellite data from back then, just assume it was mostly green.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no need for satellite data from back then , just assume it was mostly green .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no need for satellite data from back then, just assume it was mostly green.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405472</id>
	<title>Re:Oregon</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1260562140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, a lot of the area east of the Mississippi is doing pretty well on that front as well. Thanks in no small part to the conservationist types and Teddy Roosevelt, while most of the old growth forests are gone, a lot of new forests have grown up. For instance, New England went from almost completely forested to 30\% forested, and is now 80\% forested.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , a lot of the area east of the Mississippi is doing pretty well on that front as well .
Thanks in no small part to the conservationist types and Teddy Roosevelt , while most of the old growth forests are gone , a lot of new forests have grown up .
For instance , New England went from almost completely forested to 30 \ % forested , and is now 80 \ % forested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, a lot of the area east of the Mississippi is doing pretty well on that front as well.
Thanks in no small part to the conservationist types and Teddy Roosevelt, while most of the old growth forests are gone, a lot of new forests have grown up.
For instance, New England went from almost completely forested to 30\% forested, and is now 80\% forested.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405202</id>
	<title>Re:soooo</title>
	<author>Mikkeles</author>
	<datestamp>1260560880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, it was just a wasteland of trees that needed to be removed to reveal the view<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;^)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it was just a wasteland of trees that needed to be removed to reveal the view ; ^ )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it was just a wasteland of trees that needed to be removed to reveal the view ;^)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405060</id>
	<title>Re:Trees</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1260560340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[Citation needed]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ Citation needed ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[Citation needed]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405468</id>
	<title>Re:Trees</title>
	<author>nature\_geek</author>
	<datestamp>1260562140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know whether your numbers are correct.  However, even assuming that they are, turns out that the "number of trees" is a terribly poor metric for describing the value of the ecosystem services provided by a forest or a landscape.  Larges trees are more valuable than small trees.  Dead trees, snags and fallen logs remaining in the forest (which rarely exist in post-logging landscapes) are often structurally more important to the forest than half of the living trees remaining there.</p><p>Just saying...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know whether your numbers are correct .
However , even assuming that they are , turns out that the " number of trees " is a terribly poor metric for describing the value of the ecosystem services provided by a forest or a landscape .
Larges trees are more valuable than small trees .
Dead trees , snags and fallen logs remaining in the forest ( which rarely exist in post-logging landscapes ) are often structurally more important to the forest than half of the living trees remaining there.Just saying.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know whether your numbers are correct.
However, even assuming that they are, turns out that the "number of trees" is a terribly poor metric for describing the value of the ecosystem services provided by a forest or a landscape.
Larges trees are more valuable than small trees.
Dead trees, snags and fallen logs remaining in the forest (which rarely exist in post-logging landscapes) are often structurally more important to the forest than half of the living trees remaining there.Just saying...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30409734</id>
	<title>Nice Idea for a Google earth app,</title>
	<author>jacks4u2</author>
	<datestamp>1260542880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Too bad it doesn't work for Linux.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad it does n't work for Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad it doesn't work for Linux.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30407230</id>
	<title>Re:North American Reforestation.</title>
	<author>Temujin\_12</author>
	<datestamp>1260527220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is interesting to drive through certain areas in the northwest US and see entire forests which were clear cut a few decades ago but were replanted and now look just like a fully-grown forest (however you define that).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is interesting to drive through certain areas in the northwest US and see entire forests which were clear cut a few decades ago but were replanted and now look just like a fully-grown forest ( however you define that ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is interesting to drive through certain areas in the northwest US and see entire forests which were clear cut a few decades ago but were replanted and now look just like a fully-grown forest (however you define that).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405112</id>
	<title>Cool!</title>
	<author>XxtraLarGe</author>
	<datestamp>1260560580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can see my house from here!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see my house from here !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see my house from here!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404708</id>
	<title>North American Reforestation.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1260558960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The original poster wishes he could see North America before the logging industry swept in. Around 30-50 years ago, his intuition would have been rewarded. But, for the last decades, much of the United States has actually been reforested, rather than deforested.  The reasons for this are complex and mixed, but some factors include the original mills going out of business in the Northeastern USA, adoption of better forestry practices, a reversion of farmland to homesites - which invariably means planting even more trees, and so on.</p><p>Indeed, Americans have been catching something of a break as they have planted so many trees that North America would be a net carbon sink, if they didn't also drive so many cars.  This picture changes as all the new trees mature and their carbon uptake decreases.  But, the important lesson here is that while Americans might be bad about CO2 emissions, they have, in their own way, also showed how areas can be reforested, that were once barren.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The original poster wishes he could see North America before the logging industry swept in .
Around 30-50 years ago , his intuition would have been rewarded .
But , for the last decades , much of the United States has actually been reforested , rather than deforested .
The reasons for this are complex and mixed , but some factors include the original mills going out of business in the Northeastern USA , adoption of better forestry practices , a reversion of farmland to homesites - which invariably means planting even more trees , and so on.Indeed , Americans have been catching something of a break as they have planted so many trees that North America would be a net carbon sink , if they did n't also drive so many cars .
This picture changes as all the new trees mature and their carbon uptake decreases .
But , the important lesson here is that while Americans might be bad about CO2 emissions , they have , in their own way , also showed how areas can be reforested , that were once barren .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The original poster wishes he could see North America before the logging industry swept in.
Around 30-50 years ago, his intuition would have been rewarded.
But, for the last decades, much of the United States has actually been reforested, rather than deforested.
The reasons for this are complex and mixed, but some factors include the original mills going out of business in the Northeastern USA, adoption of better forestry practices, a reversion of farmland to homesites - which invariably means planting even more trees, and so on.Indeed, Americans have been catching something of a break as they have planted so many trees that North America would be a net carbon sink, if they didn't also drive so many cars.
This picture changes as all the new trees mature and their carbon uptake decreases.
But, the important lesson here is that while Americans might be bad about CO2 emissions, they have, in their own way, also showed how areas can be reforested, that were once barren.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30406078</id>
	<title>Re:Trees</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260522000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The cause is less about planting trees than it is about preventing forest fires. Prior to effective fire fighting there was more of a balance between prarie and forest. Fires would burn back trees and the area would quickly turn to prarie. Over the next hundred year or so the tree canopy would be dense enough stop sunlight and choke out the undergrowth.</p><p>Most of the forest in the US was logged at one time or another. Much of it poorly. Our most extensive forests are all relatively new, so the trees are relativelty small, so they remain tightly spaced.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The cause is less about planting trees than it is about preventing forest fires .
Prior to effective fire fighting there was more of a balance between prarie and forest .
Fires would burn back trees and the area would quickly turn to prarie .
Over the next hundred year or so the tree canopy would be dense enough stop sunlight and choke out the undergrowth.Most of the forest in the US was logged at one time or another .
Much of it poorly .
Our most extensive forests are all relatively new , so the trees are relativelty small , so they remain tightly spaced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cause is less about planting trees than it is about preventing forest fires.
Prior to effective fire fighting there was more of a balance between prarie and forest.
Fires would burn back trees and the area would quickly turn to prarie.
Over the next hundred year or so the tree canopy would be dense enough stop sunlight and choke out the undergrowth.Most of the forest in the US was logged at one time or another.
Much of it poorly.
Our most extensive forests are all relatively new, so the trees are relativelty small, so they remain tightly spaced.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405414</id>
	<title>Re:Trees</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260561840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, but they chopped down almost all the big ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but they chopped down almost all the big ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but they chopped down almost all the big ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405046</id>
	<title>Let's stop using toilet paper.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260560280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most paper today goes towards making toilet paper. Are they seriously suggesting that we stop wiping the shit from our asses, and instead just leave it there to fester and become a health hazard?</p><p>It sounds like a no-win situation. On one hand, we'll need to make direct contact with our feces to save the forests. On the other hand, we won't properly dispose of our fecal waste, and this will lead to health complications.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most paper today goes towards making toilet paper .
Are they seriously suggesting that we stop wiping the shit from our asses , and instead just leave it there to fester and become a health hazard ? It sounds like a no-win situation .
On one hand , we 'll need to make direct contact with our feces to save the forests .
On the other hand , we wo n't properly dispose of our fecal waste , and this will lead to health complications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most paper today goes towards making toilet paper.
Are they seriously suggesting that we stop wiping the shit from our asses, and instead just leave it there to fester and become a health hazard?It sounds like a no-win situation.
On one hand, we'll need to make direct contact with our feces to save the forests.
On the other hand, we won't properly dispose of our fecal waste, and this will lead to health complications.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30414186</id>
	<title>Re:Trees</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1260635220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where: Coastal New England<br>Who: Wampanoags, Massachusetts, Narrangansetts, Pequots, and several other groups<br>How many: Not entirely clear, but most evidence is that there were something like 50,000-100,000 residents of the area before European contact.<br>How large: At least most of present-day southern New England (Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts.<br>At what times: Not entirely clear when it started, but what was clear from reports from early explorers and settlers is that it was easy to walk around, there was beautiful agricultural land available (due to a very large percentage of the population being wiped out by smallpox and other plagues in the late 1500's), and they never really described it as pristine woodlands.</p><p>It's not a matter of "noble Indians", just Indians who were capable of basic science. They're livelihood was based around hunting in woodlands and cultivation of corn, beans, and squash. They experimented and figured out ways of making that process easier. That's not a far-fetched hypothesis in the least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where : Coastal New EnglandWho : Wampanoags , Massachusetts , Narrangansetts , Pequots , and several other groupsHow many : Not entirely clear , but most evidence is that there were something like 50,000-100,000 residents of the area before European contact.How large : At least most of present-day southern New England ( Connecticut , Rhode Island , Massachusetts.At what times : Not entirely clear when it started , but what was clear from reports from early explorers and settlers is that it was easy to walk around , there was beautiful agricultural land available ( due to a very large percentage of the population being wiped out by smallpox and other plagues in the late 1500 's ) , and they never really described it as pristine woodlands.It 's not a matter of " noble Indians " , just Indians who were capable of basic science .
They 're livelihood was based around hunting in woodlands and cultivation of corn , beans , and squash .
They experimented and figured out ways of making that process easier .
That 's not a far-fetched hypothesis in the least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where: Coastal New EnglandWho: Wampanoags, Massachusetts, Narrangansetts, Pequots, and several other groupsHow many: Not entirely clear, but most evidence is that there were something like 50,000-100,000 residents of the area before European contact.How large: At least most of present-day southern New England (Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts.At what times: Not entirely clear when it started, but what was clear from reports from early explorers and settlers is that it was easy to walk around, there was beautiful agricultural land available (due to a very large percentage of the population being wiped out by smallpox and other plagues in the late 1500's), and they never really described it as pristine woodlands.It's not a matter of "noble Indians", just Indians who were capable of basic science.
They're livelihood was based around hunting in woodlands and cultivation of corn, beans, and squash.
They experimented and figured out ways of making that process easier.
That's not a far-fetched hypothesis in the least.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30409862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404600</id>
	<title>kdawson has a tiny penis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260558480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Me chinese. Me play joke. Me go peepee in your coke.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Me chinese .
Me play joke .
Me go peepee in your coke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Me chinese.
Me play joke.
Me go peepee in your coke.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30421362</id>
	<title>Re:Trees</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1260699120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, because you know exactly how many trees were in all of North America, before we arrived there!</p><p>Just saying...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , because you know exactly how many trees were in all of North America , before we arrived there ! Just saying.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, because you know exactly how many trees were in all of North America, before we arrived there!Just saying...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404740</id>
	<title>before the logging industry swept in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260559020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before the beaver swept in.</p><p>Before the native americans swept in.</p><p>Before the farmers swept in.</p><p>Before the home builders swept in.</p><p>Should we go back to europe? And africa?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before the beaver swept in.Before the native americans swept in.Before the farmers swept in.Before the home builders swept in.Should we go back to europe ?
And africa ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before the beaver swept in.Before the native americans swept in.Before the farmers swept in.Before the home builders swept in.Should we go back to europe?
And africa?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30408344</id>
	<title>Re:North American Reforestation.</title>
	<author>FredThompson</author>
	<datestamp>1260533880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, the OP is a fool. Trees are plants which are FARMED.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , the OP is a fool .
Trees are plants which are FARMED .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, the OP is a fool.
Trees are plants which are FARMED.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30414220</id>
	<title>Re:Oregon</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1260635400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The Timber Industry" is one of the largest environmental devastators of all time, and working in it is as indefensible as working in offshore oil or any other dirty, destructive process. We should have stopped our timber clearing practices long ago, but instead began to run up against problems like that with the spotted owl "all of a sudden" due to a lack of foresight. Of course, the timber industry is legally protected in a zillion ways; in many places in this country, it's illegal to build your house with anything else. Without this legal protectionism we would have moved on to superior alternatives long ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The Timber Industry " is one of the largest environmental devastators of all time , and working in it is as indefensible as working in offshore oil or any other dirty , destructive process .
We should have stopped our timber clearing practices long ago , but instead began to run up against problems like that with the spotted owl " all of a sudden " due to a lack of foresight .
Of course , the timber industry is legally protected in a zillion ways ; in many places in this country , it 's illegal to build your house with anything else .
Without this legal protectionism we would have moved on to superior alternatives long ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The Timber Industry" is one of the largest environmental devastators of all time, and working in it is as indefensible as working in offshore oil or any other dirty, destructive process.
We should have stopped our timber clearing practices long ago, but instead began to run up against problems like that with the spotted owl "all of a sudden" due to a lack of foresight.
Of course, the timber industry is legally protected in a zillion ways; in many places in this country, it's illegal to build your house with anything else.
Without this legal protectionism we would have moved on to superior alternatives long ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404754</id>
	<title>Pre-Logging Industry Maps</title>
	<author>jbeaupre</author>
	<datestamp>1260559080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"If only satellite data of North America existed before the logging industry swept in!"</p></div></blockquote><p>
Not from a satellites, but there are some maps.  For example: <a href="http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nercNORTHAMERICA.html" title="ornl.gov">http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nercNORTHAMERICA.html</a> [ornl.gov] <br> <br>Note the complete lack of forests over most of NA about 15,000 years ago.<br> <br>or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western\_Interior\_Seaway" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western\_Interior\_Seaway</a> [wikipedia.org] <br> <br>Not much forest under the ocean bits.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" If only satellite data of North America existed before the logging industry swept in !
" Not from a satellites , but there are some maps .
For example : http : //www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nercNORTHAMERICA.html [ ornl.gov ] Note the complete lack of forests over most of NA about 15,000 years ago .
or http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western \ _Interior \ _Seaway [ wikipedia.org ] Not much forest under the ocean bits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If only satellite data of North America existed before the logging industry swept in!
"
Not from a satellites, but there are some maps.
For example: http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nercNORTHAMERICA.html [ornl.gov]  Note the complete lack of forests over most of NA about 15,000 years ago.
or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western\_Interior\_Seaway [wikipedia.org]  Not much forest under the ocean bits.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30411162</id>
	<title>Wrong article!</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1260554760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its not if i have "google earth installed" (which I do) - its if i have their bloatware plugin installed (which I don't)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its not if i have " google earth installed " ( which I do ) - its if i have their bloatware plugin installed ( which I do n't )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its not if i have "google earth installed" (which I do) - its if i have their bloatware plugin installed (which I don't)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404702</id>
	<title>So?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260558900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And how will those who have previously already seen immense evidence of deforestation, countless images of destroyed forests, be affected by this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And how will those who have previously already seen immense evidence of deforestation , countless images of destroyed forests , be affected by this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how will those who have previously already seen immense evidence of deforestation, countless images of destroyed forests, be affected by this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404730</id>
	<title>Oregon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260559020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have more trees here in Oregon now than were here 100 years ago or even 200 years ago. (Unlike nature, we don't let forest fires burn them down.)</p><p>We plant them all over the place and take care of them. Every time we cut one tree down, we plant 3 to 10 more of them.</p><p>We really are not deforested to the west of the Mississippi. Now east of the Mississippi is a different story. But no one is talking about deforestation on the east coast. They only talk about it out west where we have plenty of trees to go around.</p><p>School kids went out 30 years ago on filed trips here in Oregon to plant trees. Why? As a reminder that most of the income in this state came from logging, and that timber was a renewable resource. If we plant trees today, then in 20 years when you are old enough to work a timber job, there will be plenty of trees to cut down.</p><p>I live in a county that has been devastated by the loss of 80\% of the logging industry. We have as many trees now as we had 30 years ago. The only difference is we have 15\% unemployment and we can't cut and replant trees to actually make a living.</p><p>Earth first -- we will log the rest of the planets later</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have more trees here in Oregon now than were here 100 years ago or even 200 years ago .
( Unlike nature , we do n't let forest fires burn them down .
) We plant them all over the place and take care of them .
Every time we cut one tree down , we plant 3 to 10 more of them.We really are not deforested to the west of the Mississippi .
Now east of the Mississippi is a different story .
But no one is talking about deforestation on the east coast .
They only talk about it out west where we have plenty of trees to go around.School kids went out 30 years ago on filed trips here in Oregon to plant trees .
Why ? As a reminder that most of the income in this state came from logging , and that timber was a renewable resource .
If we plant trees today , then in 20 years when you are old enough to work a timber job , there will be plenty of trees to cut down.I live in a county that has been devastated by the loss of 80 \ % of the logging industry .
We have as many trees now as we had 30 years ago .
The only difference is we have 15 \ % unemployment and we ca n't cut and replant trees to actually make a living.Earth first -- we will log the rest of the planets later</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have more trees here in Oregon now than were here 100 years ago or even 200 years ago.
(Unlike nature, we don't let forest fires burn them down.
)We plant them all over the place and take care of them.
Every time we cut one tree down, we plant 3 to 10 more of them.We really are not deforested to the west of the Mississippi.
Now east of the Mississippi is a different story.
But no one is talking about deforestation on the east coast.
They only talk about it out west where we have plenty of trees to go around.School kids went out 30 years ago on filed trips here in Oregon to plant trees.
Why? As a reminder that most of the income in this state came from logging, and that timber was a renewable resource.
If we plant trees today, then in 20 years when you are old enough to work a timber job, there will be plenty of trees to cut down.I live in a county that has been devastated by the loss of 80\% of the logging industry.
We have as many trees now as we had 30 years ago.
The only difference is we have 15\% unemployment and we can't cut and replant trees to actually make a living.Earth first -- we will log the rest of the planets later</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405442</id>
	<title>Re:Trees</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260561960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's one tree for every 198 sq ft. That's a pretty small tree. I wonder how big those previous 8 trees were?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's one tree for every 198 sq ft. That 's a pretty small tree .
I wonder how big those previous 8 trees were ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's one tree for every 198 sq ft. That's a pretty small tree.
I wonder how big those previous 8 trees were?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405656</id>
	<title>Re:North American Reforestation.</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1260563040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That said, it's not like planting trees in the US will compensate for the rainforest's loss. Thats like saying poking holes in your body make up for the loss of your lungs.</p></div><p>That's a dumb metaphor and you should know it. It's a modest compensation. It's more like losing a million bucks, then getting a few tens of thousands of it back. It's replacing some part of what is lost.<br> <br>

As an aside, I wonder how much reforestation goes on in the tropics. As far as I know, there isn't a lot of deliberate reforestation, but there is a bit of letting the land go back to jungle.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That said , it 's not like planting trees in the US will compensate for the rainforest 's loss .
Thats like saying poking holes in your body make up for the loss of your lungs.That 's a dumb metaphor and you should know it .
It 's a modest compensation .
It 's more like losing a million bucks , then getting a few tens of thousands of it back .
It 's replacing some part of what is lost .
As an aside , I wonder how much reforestation goes on in the tropics .
As far as I know , there is n't a lot of deliberate reforestation , but there is a bit of letting the land go back to jungle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That said, it's not like planting trees in the US will compensate for the rainforest's loss.
Thats like saying poking holes in your body make up for the loss of your lungs.That's a dumb metaphor and you should know it.
It's a modest compensation.
It's more like losing a million bucks, then getting a few tens of thousands of it back.
It's replacing some part of what is lost.
As an aside, I wonder how much reforestation goes on in the tropics.
As far as I know, there isn't a lot of deliberate reforestation, but there is a bit of letting the land go back to jungle.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30406392</id>
	<title>Re:Oregon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260523620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Every time we cut one tree down, we plant 3 to 10 more of them."</p><p>Cite needed.</p></div><p>Yes, it's true. A grown tree covers so much soil, that you can easily plant 10 saplings in its place (and still feel the space empty).<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; However, during clearing, most of those small trees will be cut down to allow one of them to grow.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; So, you cut one grown tree, plant 10 saplings, and cut 9 of them (or they die) before the remaining sapling grows big.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Every time we cut one tree down , we plant 3 to 10 more of them .
" Cite needed.Yes , it 's true .
A grown tree covers so much soil , that you can easily plant 10 saplings in its place ( and still feel the space empty ) .
      However , during clearing , most of those small trees will be cut down to allow one of them to grow .
            So , you cut one grown tree , plant 10 saplings , and cut 9 of them ( or they die ) before the remaining sapling grows big .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Every time we cut one tree down, we plant 3 to 10 more of them.
"Cite needed.Yes, it's true.
A grown tree covers so much soil, that you can easily plant 10 saplings in its place (and still feel the space empty).
      However, during clearing, most of those small trees will be cut down to allow one of them to grow.
            So, you cut one grown tree, plant 10 saplings, and cut 9 of them (or they die) before the remaining sapling grows big.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404840</id>
	<title>Demoed?</title>
	<author>ground.zero.612</author>
	<datestamp>1260559500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Demolished or demonstrated? Maybe some Googelian combination of the two?
<br> <br>
fwarren: I believe fighting natural forest fires has proven to be policy error. For a citation please see the burning of Custer State Park. There are no more Smokey the Bear commercials because forest fires are actually necessary to prevent catastrophic fires. From what I remember reading, the 40+ years of Smokey the Bear campaigning, and fire fighting left MILLIONS of tons of fuel in the form of old dead timber.
<br> <br>
I guess I'm just trying to point out that while some of Oregon's other forestry programs might be a benefit, fighting forest fires for decades can and has lead to a catastrophe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Demolished or demonstrated ?
Maybe some Googelian combination of the two ?
fwarren : I believe fighting natural forest fires has proven to be policy error .
For a citation please see the burning of Custer State Park .
There are no more Smokey the Bear commercials because forest fires are actually necessary to prevent catastrophic fires .
From what I remember reading , the 40 + years of Smokey the Bear campaigning , and fire fighting left MILLIONS of tons of fuel in the form of old dead timber .
I guess I 'm just trying to point out that while some of Oregon 's other forestry programs might be a benefit , fighting forest fires for decades can and has lead to a catastrophe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Demolished or demonstrated?
Maybe some Googelian combination of the two?
fwarren: I believe fighting natural forest fires has proven to be policy error.
For a citation please see the burning of Custer State Park.
There are no more Smokey the Bear commercials because forest fires are actually necessary to prevent catastrophic fires.
From what I remember reading, the 40+ years of Smokey the Bear campaigning, and fire fighting left MILLIONS of tons of fuel in the form of old dead timber.
I guess I'm just trying to point out that while some of Oregon's other forestry programs might be a benefit, fighting forest fires for decades can and has lead to a catastrophe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405122</id>
	<title>Re:Oregon</title>
	<author>Tekfactory</author>
	<datestamp>1260560640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually under Carbon Emissions restrictions passed in Europe, coal burning plants are burning wood pellets that are seen as carbon neutral. Many of the wood pellets burned in Europe come from the SouthEast US. The author of the BBC article I was reading this in wondered how long the united states will continue to ship wood pellets to Europe when it enacts its own Cap and Trade restrictions.</p><p>The wood pellets can be made from young or old trees, sawdust, trimmings, scraps, wood pulp, anything.</p><p>Likewise China has severe restrictions on logging, in China. Furniture made there now is made from wood harvested legally and illegally in other Asian countries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually under Carbon Emissions restrictions passed in Europe , coal burning plants are burning wood pellets that are seen as carbon neutral .
Many of the wood pellets burned in Europe come from the SouthEast US .
The author of the BBC article I was reading this in wondered how long the united states will continue to ship wood pellets to Europe when it enacts its own Cap and Trade restrictions.The wood pellets can be made from young or old trees , sawdust , trimmings , scraps , wood pulp , anything.Likewise China has severe restrictions on logging , in China .
Furniture made there now is made from wood harvested legally and illegally in other Asian countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually under Carbon Emissions restrictions passed in Europe, coal burning plants are burning wood pellets that are seen as carbon neutral.
Many of the wood pellets burned in Europe come from the SouthEast US.
The author of the BBC article I was reading this in wondered how long the united states will continue to ship wood pellets to Europe when it enacts its own Cap and Trade restrictions.The wood pellets can be made from young or old trees, sawdust, trimmings, scraps, wood pulp, anything.Likewise China has severe restrictions on logging, in China.
Furniture made there now is made from wood harvested legally and illegally in other Asian countries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405096</id>
	<title>The evidence has been there all along</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260560520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can recall using Google Earth shortly after it was first released to zoom around the earth, randomly poking at it with a stick.  I was looking for anything that seemed to stand out, and I found quite a number of unique things in those days: weird geologic features in Brunei/Sarawak, the salt flats in the Andes, the gold/minerals rush in the Atacama desert.</p><p>One of them was obvious overhead evidence of clear-cutting in southwest Australia.  I've always had a silent fantasy about moving to Australia, believing it to be some sort of relative Utopia where things like resource mismanagement and government abuses didn't happen.  The discovery of that clear-cutting FROM ORBIT was the beginning of the end of my fantasy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can recall using Google Earth shortly after it was first released to zoom around the earth , randomly poking at it with a stick .
I was looking for anything that seemed to stand out , and I found quite a number of unique things in those days : weird geologic features in Brunei/Sarawak , the salt flats in the Andes , the gold/minerals rush in the Atacama desert.One of them was obvious overhead evidence of clear-cutting in southwest Australia .
I 've always had a silent fantasy about moving to Australia , believing it to be some sort of relative Utopia where things like resource mismanagement and government abuses did n't happen .
The discovery of that clear-cutting FROM ORBIT was the beginning of the end of my fantasy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can recall using Google Earth shortly after it was first released to zoom around the earth, randomly poking at it with a stick.
I was looking for anything that seemed to stand out, and I found quite a number of unique things in those days: weird geologic features in Brunei/Sarawak, the salt flats in the Andes, the gold/minerals rush in the Atacama desert.One of them was obvious overhead evidence of clear-cutting in southwest Australia.
I've always had a silent fantasy about moving to Australia, believing it to be some sort of relative Utopia where things like resource mismanagement and government abuses didn't happen.
The discovery of that clear-cutting FROM ORBIT was the beginning of the end of my fantasy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30408294</id>
	<title>Google Earth is useful...</title>
	<author>whathappenedtomonday</author>
	<datestamp>1260533700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and using it to track deforestation is neat and all, but a better, more comprehensive source of information is <a href="http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/i0350e/i0350e00.htm" title="fao.org">the State of the World's Forests 2009 report</a> [fao.org]. And yes, it has neat and colorful maps, too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and using it to track deforestation is neat and all , but a better , more comprehensive source of information is the State of the World 's Forests 2009 report [ fao.org ] .
And yes , it has neat and colorful maps , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and using it to track deforestation is neat and all, but a better, more comprehensive source of information is the State of the World's Forests 2009 report [fao.org].
And yes, it has neat and colorful maps, too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30406052</id>
	<title>Re:Trees</title>
	<author>Anonymusing</author>
	<datestamp>1260565140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Question... I've seen some old-growth trees in New York's Adirondack Mountains (and elsewhere) that are 200+ years old<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... their diameter is more than the reach of my arms.  Meanwhile, all the trees in more recently-logged areas, which are maybe 50 or 80 years old, or less, are much, much smaller.  Do the bigger, older trees do more for the environment?  Or do the smaller trees make up for it in volume?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Question... I 've seen some old-growth trees in New York 's Adirondack Mountains ( and elsewhere ) that are 200 + years old ... their diameter is more than the reach of my arms .
Meanwhile , all the trees in more recently-logged areas , which are maybe 50 or 80 years old , or less , are much , much smaller .
Do the bigger , older trees do more for the environment ?
Or do the smaller trees make up for it in volume ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Question... I've seen some old-growth trees in New York's Adirondack Mountains (and elsewhere) that are 200+ years old ... their diameter is more than the reach of my arms.
Meanwhile, all the trees in more recently-logged areas, which are maybe 50 or 80 years old, or less, are much, much smaller.
Do the bigger, older trees do more for the environment?
Or do the smaller trees make up for it in volume?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404958</id>
	<title>Re:Oregon</title>
	<author>MaWeiTao</author>
	<datestamp>1260559920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd say east of the Mississippi is pretty heavily forested too. I can't help but wonder how much carbon dioxide is being removed from the atmosphere because of forests. I wonder if there are any metrics because it seems like any news posted about the environment is invariably negative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say east of the Mississippi is pretty heavily forested too .
I ca n't help but wonder how much carbon dioxide is being removed from the atmosphere because of forests .
I wonder if there are any metrics because it seems like any news posted about the environment is invariably negative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say east of the Mississippi is pretty heavily forested too.
I can't help but wonder how much carbon dioxide is being removed from the atmosphere because of forests.
I wonder if there are any metrics because it seems like any news posted about the environment is invariably negative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30407184</id>
	<title>talking</title>
	<author>zogger</author>
	<datestamp>1260527040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one is talking about it because it is is a non issue, we have plenty of forests east of the Mississippi.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one is talking about it because it is is a non issue , we have plenty of forests east of the Mississippi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one is talking about it because it is is a non issue, we have plenty of forests east of the Mississippi.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405174</id>
	<title>Re:Oregon</title>
	<author>DeadDecoy</author>
	<datestamp>1260560760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>We have more trees here in Oregon now than were here 100 years ago or even 200 years ago. (Unlike nature, we don't let forest fires burn them down.)
<br> <br>
Well, it helps that Oregon has rain 60\% of the time throughout the year. In California the state has to do controlled burning to limit the damage a wildfire might cause. Plus Oregon's heavy rain system makes it easier to grow plants there; the only other place I've seen that has the same capacity have been the Hawaiian islands. Those benefit from frequent rains and fertility from volcanic soil. But, overall you make a good point. Planting more trees than you cut down leads to a more sustainable and pretty environment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have more trees here in Oregon now than were here 100 years ago or even 200 years ago .
( Unlike nature , we do n't let forest fires burn them down .
) Well , it helps that Oregon has rain 60 \ % of the time throughout the year .
In California the state has to do controlled burning to limit the damage a wildfire might cause .
Plus Oregon 's heavy rain system makes it easier to grow plants there ; the only other place I 've seen that has the same capacity have been the Hawaiian islands .
Those benefit from frequent rains and fertility from volcanic soil .
But , overall you make a good point .
Planting more trees than you cut down leads to a more sustainable and pretty environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have more trees here in Oregon now than were here 100 years ago or even 200 years ago.
(Unlike nature, we don't let forest fires burn them down.
)
 
Well, it helps that Oregon has rain 60\% of the time throughout the year.
In California the state has to do controlled burning to limit the damage a wildfire might cause.
Plus Oregon's heavy rain system makes it easier to grow plants there; the only other place I've seen that has the same capacity have been the Hawaiian islands.
Those benefit from frequent rains and fertility from volcanic soil.
But, overall you make a good point.
Planting more trees than you cut down leads to a more sustainable and pretty environment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404874</id>
	<title>Re:Trees</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260559620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>8 Trees per acres sounds about right for centuries old trees in pristine forest.</p><p>I have a quarter acre with 5, 30-40 year old maples on it, we also have 2 Japanese Cedars and a Cherry tree.</p><p>200 trees in an acre would be pretty closely spaced young trees, maybe like an orchard or nursery.</p><p>Now what we should be looking at is not how many trees we have per acre, but how many of those are young AND carbon absorbing trees, compared to carbon producing trees from decomposition. Forests have a carbon life cycle, and their balance shifts during that cycle, also some species of tree are better absrbers than others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>8 Trees per acres sounds about right for centuries old trees in pristine forest.I have a quarter acre with 5 , 30-40 year old maples on it , we also have 2 Japanese Cedars and a Cherry tree.200 trees in an acre would be pretty closely spaced young trees , maybe like an orchard or nursery.Now what we should be looking at is not how many trees we have per acre , but how many of those are young AND carbon absorbing trees , compared to carbon producing trees from decomposition .
Forests have a carbon life cycle , and their balance shifts during that cycle , also some species of tree are better absrbers than others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>8 Trees per acres sounds about right for centuries old trees in pristine forest.I have a quarter acre with 5, 30-40 year old maples on it, we also have 2 Japanese Cedars and a Cherry tree.200 trees in an acre would be pretty closely spaced young trees, maybe like an orchard or nursery.Now what we should be looking at is not how many trees we have per acre, but how many of those are young AND carbon absorbing trees, compared to carbon producing trees from decomposition.
Forests have a carbon life cycle, and their balance shifts during that cycle, also some species of tree are better absrbers than others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405306</id>
	<title>Re:Trees</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260561360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A roughly one acre section of my yard has about 1 tree per 10 ft radius.  All of the trees are about 75 feet tall or larger and the only branches are the ones clear at the top as each tree fights for direct light, they look like telephone poles with a small canopy top.  The new comers are all about 5-10 feet tall and stragly looking things and grow EXTREMELY slow.  Around the edge is some pines and the deciduous ones near the edge are all twisted and angled or only have branches on the light side as they fight with the pines.</p><p>Where am I going with this story?  Not sure.  I have spaced out older larger trees in other areas of my yard that are extremely large and round and although they are single trees, they take up much more "leaf space" then probably 10 of the really tall ones packed in i have in the other part of my yard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A roughly one acre section of my yard has about 1 tree per 10 ft radius .
All of the trees are about 75 feet tall or larger and the only branches are the ones clear at the top as each tree fights for direct light , they look like telephone poles with a small canopy top .
The new comers are all about 5-10 feet tall and stragly looking things and grow EXTREMELY slow .
Around the edge is some pines and the deciduous ones near the edge are all twisted and angled or only have branches on the light side as they fight with the pines.Where am I going with this story ?
Not sure .
I have spaced out older larger trees in other areas of my yard that are extremely large and round and although they are single trees , they take up much more " leaf space " then probably 10 of the really tall ones packed in i have in the other part of my yard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A roughly one acre section of my yard has about 1 tree per 10 ft radius.
All of the trees are about 75 feet tall or larger and the only branches are the ones clear at the top as each tree fights for direct light, they look like telephone poles with a small canopy top.
The new comers are all about 5-10 feet tall and stragly looking things and grow EXTREMELY slow.
Around the edge is some pines and the deciduous ones near the edge are all twisted and angled or only have branches on the light side as they fight with the pines.Where am I going with this story?
Not sure.
I have spaced out older larger trees in other areas of my yard that are extremely large and round and although they are single trees, they take up much more "leaf space" then probably 10 of the really tall ones packed in i have in the other part of my yard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30409862</id>
	<title>Re:Trees</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260543720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[citation needed]</p><p>
&nbsp; Where, who, how  many, how large the area, at what times. Otherwise this is just mythical FUD about "noble Indians"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ citation needed ]   Where , who , how many , how large the area , at what times .
Otherwise this is just mythical FUD about " noble Indians "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[citation needed]
  Where, who, how  many, how large the area, at what times.
Otherwise this is just mythical FUD about "noble Indians"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405240</id>
	<title>Re:Trees</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1260561060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's important to note that the North American forests were not "pristine" when the white folks showed up. The people who had lived there for a few thousand years had practiced some fairly sophisticated forest management. For instance, they would regularly clear undergrowth to make it easier to travel and hunt, and put significant effort into managing herd sizes. They also cleared some spaces for agriculture, which the Pilgrims in particular took advantage of when they went to set up their own colony.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's important to note that the North American forests were not " pristine " when the white folks showed up .
The people who had lived there for a few thousand years had practiced some fairly sophisticated forest management .
For instance , they would regularly clear undergrowth to make it easier to travel and hunt , and put significant effort into managing herd sizes .
They also cleared some spaces for agriculture , which the Pilgrims in particular took advantage of when they went to set up their own colony .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's important to note that the North American forests were not "pristine" when the white folks showed up.
The people who had lived there for a few thousand years had practiced some fairly sophisticated forest management.
For instance, they would regularly clear undergrowth to make it easier to travel and hunt, and put significant effort into managing herd sizes.
They also cleared some spaces for agriculture, which the Pilgrims in particular took advantage of when they went to set up their own colony.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405628</id>
	<title>Re:North American Reforestation.</title>
	<author>Dalzhim</author>
	<datestamp>1260562920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can easily have the amount of trees grow in my own yard when I use wood chopped down from my neighbour's trees to keep my fireplace filled up.
The point being, we don't care about the amount of trees in the US alone if the amount of trees worldwide is declining.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can easily have the amount of trees grow in my own yard when I use wood chopped down from my neighbour 's trees to keep my fireplace filled up .
The point being , we do n't care about the amount of trees in the US alone if the amount of trees worldwide is declining .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can easily have the amount of trees grow in my own yard when I use wood chopped down from my neighbour's trees to keep my fireplace filled up.
The point being, we don't care about the amount of trees in the US alone if the amount of trees worldwide is declining.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405000</id>
	<title>No love for linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260560100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tried to view the demonstration.</p><p>"Google Earth Plugin is only available on Windows and Mac OS X 10.4+"</p><p>I guess I'm SOL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried to view the demonstration .
" Google Earth Plugin is only available on Windows and Mac OS X 10.4 + " I guess I 'm SOL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried to view the demonstration.
"Google Earth Plugin is only available on Windows and Mac OS X 10.4+"I guess I'm SOL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30413458</id>
	<title>Re:North American Reforestation.</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1260629100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Half the CO2 the take in during the day is put back out at night, and the rotting foliage put it's CO2 back into the air.</p></div><p>Well, until it becomes anaerobic (e.g. the duff piles high enough.) Then it starts putting out methane<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Half the CO2 the take in during the day is put back out at night , and the rotting foliage put it 's CO2 back into the air.Well , until it becomes anaerobic ( e.g .
the duff piles high enough .
) Then it starts putting out methane : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Half the CO2 the take in during the day is put back out at night, and the rotting foliage put it's CO2 back into the air.Well, until it becomes anaerobic (e.g.
the duff piles high enough.
) Then it starts putting out methane :)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404826</id>
	<title>Re:Trees</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260559500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that \_might\_ be true, but those 8 trees were a heck of a lot larger than the forests we now have. Way back in the day, the entire state of Pennsylvania was clearcut for timber. The pine trees didn't regrow and the forests in PA are now predominately composed of hardwood trees that flourished naturally.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that \ _might \ _ be true , but those 8 trees were a heck of a lot larger than the forests we now have .
Way back in the day , the entire state of Pennsylvania was clearcut for timber .
The pine trees did n't regrow and the forests in PA are now predominately composed of hardwood trees that flourished naturally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that \_might\_ be true, but those 8 trees were a heck of a lot larger than the forests we now have.
Way back in the day, the entire state of Pennsylvania was clearcut for timber.
The pine trees didn't regrow and the forests in PA are now predominately composed of hardwood trees that flourished naturally.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30444366</id>
	<title>Re:Trees</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260893820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is absolutely incorrect, at least in north america.  Our productive forests are mostly wild, but harvested in a way to support and encourage growth.  So your point is correct about increase in the number of trees, but your statement about farming is wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is absolutely incorrect , at least in north america .
Our productive forests are mostly wild , but harvested in a way to support and encourage growth .
So your point is correct about increase in the number of trees , but your statement about farming is wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is absolutely incorrect, at least in north america.
Our productive forests are mostly wild, but harvested in a way to support and encourage growth.
So your point is correct about increase in the number of trees, but your statement about farming is wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30407562</id>
	<title>Re:Oregon</title>
	<author>hyades1</author>
	<datestamp>1260529320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> When people start talking about some kind of "total trees then and now" figure, let's not even get near a debate on the difference between an old growth forest and a one species tree farm.  It would just get everybody upset. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When people start talking about some kind of " total trees then and now " figure , let 's not even get near a debate on the difference between an old growth forest and a one species tree farm .
It would just get everybody upset .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> When people start talking about some kind of "total trees then and now" figure, let's not even get near a debate on the difference between an old growth forest and a one species tree farm.
It would just get everybody upset. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30412992</id>
	<title>Re:Trees</title>
	<author>cffrost</author>
	<datestamp>1260624060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Paleface plant too many trees... Fuck up natural vista.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Paleface plant too many trees... Fuck up natural vista .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Paleface plant too many trees... Fuck up natural vista.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30407348</id>
	<title>Re:Oregon</title>
	<author>EvilBudMan</author>
	<datestamp>1260528000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>--Also, forest fires don't burn down forests.--</p><p>Yeah, smoking bears with guns do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>--Also , forest fires do n't burn down forests.--Yeah , smoking bears with guns do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>--Also, forest fires don't burn down forests.--Yeah, smoking bears with guns do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405032</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30413458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30406554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30407280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30406392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30406078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30407230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30414186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30409862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30408056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30421362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30407184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30407490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30407562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30406170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30414220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30406052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30406308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30444366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30407348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30408344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30408888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30406134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1534200_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30412992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1534200.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405334
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1534200.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405202
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1534200.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404754
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1534200.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30408344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405090
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405656
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30413458
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30407230
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1534200.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404758
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30406078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30421362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30408888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30406134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30406052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404772
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30444366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30406554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30412992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30407280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404874
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405306
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405240
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30409862
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30414186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30408056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405060
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30406308
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1534200.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405096
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1534200.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404600
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1534200.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30407184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405032
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405780
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30414220
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30407490
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30407562
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30407348
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30406392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30406170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30405008
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1534200.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1534200.30404824
</commentlist>
</conversation>
