<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_14_0059229</id>
	<title>ID Thief Tries To Get Witnesses Whacked</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1260785580000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>adeelarshad82 writes <i>"Pavel Valkovich of Sherman Oaks, CA has pleaded guilty to solicitation of murder, admitting that he attempted to hire hit-men to <a href="http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/2009/12/id\_thief\_tries\_to\_get\_witnesse.php">kill witnesses working with Federal authorities</a> in their investigation of Valkovich's ID theft activities and subsequent crimes. According to the Justice Department: '...Valkovich and others had stolen personal identifying information and used that information to transfer funds from victims' bank accounts to PayPal accounts.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>adeelarshad82 writes " Pavel Valkovich of Sherman Oaks , CA has pleaded guilty to solicitation of murder , admitting that he attempted to hire hit-men to kill witnesses working with Federal authorities in their investigation of Valkovich 's ID theft activities and subsequent crimes .
According to the Justice Department : '...Valkovich and others had stolen personal identifying information and used that information to transfer funds from victims ' bank accounts to PayPal accounts .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>adeelarshad82 writes "Pavel Valkovich of Sherman Oaks, CA has pleaded guilty to solicitation of murder, admitting that he attempted to hire hit-men to kill witnesses working with Federal authorities in their investigation of Valkovich's ID theft activities and subsequent crimes.
According to the Justice Department: '...Valkovich and others had stolen personal identifying information and used that information to transfer funds from victims' bank accounts to PayPal accounts.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430904</id>
	<title>Re:What. The. Funk?</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1260805680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is all in how you calculate the "statutory maximum".</p><p>If the maximum penalty for one count of murder for hire is five years, and there are four counts, then the maximum penalty is 20 years.<br>If the maximum penalty for one count of bank fraud is two years, but there are 15 counts, then the maximum penalty is 30 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is all in how you calculate the " statutory maximum " .If the maximum penalty for one count of murder for hire is five years , and there are four counts , then the maximum penalty is 20 years.If the maximum penalty for one count of bank fraud is two years , but there are 15 counts , then the maximum penalty is 30 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is all in how you calculate the "statutory maximum".If the maximum penalty for one count of murder for hire is five years, and there are four counts, then the maximum penalty is 20 years.If the maximum penalty for one count of bank fraud is two years, but there are 15 counts, then the maximum penalty is 30 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30435748</id>
	<title>Re:Put the onus on financial institutions</title>
	<author>StikyPad</author>
	<datestamp>1260786720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't say not to lend friends money, but certainly don't lend money if you're not prepared to lose it.  Lending is legal gambling, no different than any other investment.</p><p>Also, a contract needn't be notarized to be legally binding.  Notarizing is nothing more than "proof" (evidence) of a signature.  It doesn't make the contract any more or less binding, just more difficult to say that it was forged, and a judge isn't likely to dismiss a promissory note just because it's not notarized.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't say not to lend friends money , but certainly do n't lend money if you 're not prepared to lose it .
Lending is legal gambling , no different than any other investment.Also , a contract need n't be notarized to be legally binding .
Notarizing is nothing more than " proof " ( evidence ) of a signature .
It does n't make the contract any more or less binding , just more difficult to say that it was forged , and a judge is n't likely to dismiss a promissory note just because it 's not notarized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't say not to lend friends money, but certainly don't lend money if you're not prepared to lose it.
Lending is legal gambling, no different than any other investment.Also, a contract needn't be notarized to be legally binding.
Notarizing is nothing more than "proof" (evidence) of a signature.
It doesn't make the contract any more or less binding, just more difficult to say that it was forged, and a judge isn't likely to dismiss a promissory note just because it's not notarized.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30432640</id>
	<title>Re:What bankers?</title>
	<author>Machtyn</author>
	<datestamp>1260813660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not just that... but our taxes will be raised because our tax dollars are going to slush funds for politicians and these banks/investment firms that are always "too large to fail" and must be done tomorrow or we're all going to die... or something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not just that... but our taxes will be raised because our tax dollars are going to slush funds for politicians and these banks/investment firms that are always " too large to fail " and must be done tomorrow or we 're all going to die... or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not just that... but our taxes will be raised because our tax dollars are going to slush funds for politicians and these banks/investment firms that are always "too large to fail" and must be done tomorrow or we're all going to die... or something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30431254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429342</id>
	<title>It wasn't him...</title>
	<author>Sarten-X</author>
	<datestamp>1260789900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...his identity must have been stolen!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...his identity must have been stolen !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...his identity must have been stolen!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430646</id>
	<title>Re:"Copyright theft" and *Identity theft"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260804420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently you have never had anyone steal your identity?  Or know anyone that has had this happen to them.  It takes YEARS to fix.  And yes the problem is put onto you.  You will have creditors chasing you for years for debt you did not get.  Suddenly you can no long borrow money for 'big items' but now must save 100\% for said items even though you need a washer today and not next year.  Never mind the time you will spend going to court to have things fixed.  Time spent on the phone talking to 20 different banks and creditors.  You seem to be under the mistaken impression that it is 1 system.  It is thousands of systems.  Each with a multitude of weaknesses.  The identity that is stolen is the one you project to the 'system'.</p><p>Of course they collect the advantages.  They are the ones who built it.  If I build a building and rent it out.  I collect all the advantages.  That is the point.  Is it up to me the landlord to put up laser perimeters for your pokemon collection?  No.  But you pay me extra and I might.  But expect the other tenets to not be too happy about the razor barb wire.  Your bank account is 'is a rounding error' to them.  They really do not care.  At this point in time it is cheaper for them clean up the mess afterward than to actually fix the real problem.  Of which there is no glorious 1 time fix.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently you have never had anyone steal your identity ?
Or know anyone that has had this happen to them .
It takes YEARS to fix .
And yes the problem is put onto you .
You will have creditors chasing you for years for debt you did not get .
Suddenly you can no long borrow money for 'big items ' but now must save 100 \ % for said items even though you need a washer today and not next year .
Never mind the time you will spend going to court to have things fixed .
Time spent on the phone talking to 20 different banks and creditors .
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that it is 1 system .
It is thousands of systems .
Each with a multitude of weaknesses .
The identity that is stolen is the one you project to the 'system'.Of course they collect the advantages .
They are the ones who built it .
If I build a building and rent it out .
I collect all the advantages .
That is the point .
Is it up to me the landlord to put up laser perimeters for your pokemon collection ?
No. But you pay me extra and I might .
But expect the other tenets to not be too happy about the razor barb wire .
Your bank account is 'is a rounding error ' to them .
They really do not care .
At this point in time it is cheaper for them clean up the mess afterward than to actually fix the real problem .
Of which there is no glorious 1 time fix .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently you have never had anyone steal your identity?
Or know anyone that has had this happen to them.
It takes YEARS to fix.
And yes the problem is put onto you.
You will have creditors chasing you for years for debt you did not get.
Suddenly you can no long borrow money for 'big items' but now must save 100\% for said items even though you need a washer today and not next year.
Never mind the time you will spend going to court to have things fixed.
Time spent on the phone talking to 20 different banks and creditors.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that it is 1 system.
It is thousands of systems.
Each with a multitude of weaknesses.
The identity that is stolen is the one you project to the 'system'.Of course they collect the advantages.
They are the ones who built it.
If I build a building and rent it out.
I collect all the advantages.
That is the point.
Is it up to me the landlord to put up laser perimeters for your pokemon collection?
No.  But you pay me extra and I might.
But expect the other tenets to not be too happy about the razor barb wire.
Your bank account is 'is a rounding error' to them.
They really do not care.
At this point in time it is cheaper for them clean up the mess afterward than to actually fix the real problem.
Of which there is no glorious 1 time fix.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429618</id>
	<title>I sense a room-temperature IQ...</title>
	<author>marmoset</author>
	<datestamp>1260794400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any thinking person would have realized when he was transferred to the second institution after trying to have a witness whacked that he was going to be placed in a cell with an informant.  I mean, duh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any thinking person would have realized when he was transferred to the second institution after trying to have a witness whacked that he was going to be placed in a cell with an informant .
I mean , duh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any thinking person would have realized when he was transferred to the second institution after trying to have a witness whacked that he was going to be placed in a cell with an informant.
I mean, duh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30432846</id>
	<title>Re:What bankers?</title>
	<author>GateGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1260814560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about the companies that were rating bonds as AAA, when they clearly were not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about the companies that were rating bonds as AAA , when they clearly were not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about the companies that were rating bonds as AAA, when they clearly were not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30438274</id>
	<title>Here Here. Agree</title>
	<author>JohnnyComeLately</author>
	<datestamp>1260798420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I usually avoid replying because honestly, most people have no clue about macro or micro economics.  Your reply is spot on.  I remember loan agents throwing loan docs at me with nothing more than a verbal promise of what I earned.  They were willing to give me $750,000 on my word (and home's deed), yet Chase was jacking my rates to 35\% if a payment was processed on the due date (which I canceled).  Both were huge red flags in my book and both avoided, thankfully.  It's funny how easy it is to forget that before the whole collapse there were, I believe on both sides of the isle, people saying the mortgage process/regulatory oversight was broken.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I usually avoid replying because honestly , most people have no clue about macro or micro economics .
Your reply is spot on .
I remember loan agents throwing loan docs at me with nothing more than a verbal promise of what I earned .
They were willing to give me $ 750,000 on my word ( and home 's deed ) , yet Chase was jacking my rates to 35 \ % if a payment was processed on the due date ( which I canceled ) .
Both were huge red flags in my book and both avoided , thankfully .
It 's funny how easy it is to forget that before the whole collapse there were , I believe on both sides of the isle , people saying the mortgage process/regulatory oversight was broken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I usually avoid replying because honestly, most people have no clue about macro or micro economics.
Your reply is spot on.
I remember loan agents throwing loan docs at me with nothing more than a verbal promise of what I earned.
They were willing to give me $750,000 on my word (and home's deed), yet Chase was jacking my rates to 35\% if a payment was processed on the due date (which I canceled).
Both were huge red flags in my book and both avoided, thankfully.
It's funny how easy it is to forget that before the whole collapse there were, I believe on both sides of the isle, people saying the mortgage process/regulatory oversight was broken.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429978</id>
	<title>Re:Put the onus on financial institutions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260799440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>requiring all the banks and credit card companies to jump through more identity verification hoops before they give someone your money or a line of credit in your name</p></div><p>Particularly when I see some of the info that's being spread far and wide. A few weeks ago, I get a facebook invitation to a genealogy app. Since it's something I'd meant to do for a long time and the Internet certainly makes it easier now and FB now has a critical mass that may actually make it work, I think, sure, why not.
</p><p>
First question from the app: mother's maiden name. Part of my bank identity verification scheme: check.
</p><p>
2nd question from the app: Street you grew up on.  Part of my bank identity verification scheme: check.
</p><p>
Etc, etc... No, but no thanks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>requiring all the banks and credit card companies to jump through more identity verification hoops before they give someone your money or a line of credit in your nameParticularly when I see some of the info that 's being spread far and wide .
A few weeks ago , I get a facebook invitation to a genealogy app .
Since it 's something I 'd meant to do for a long time and the Internet certainly makes it easier now and FB now has a critical mass that may actually make it work , I think , sure , why not .
First question from the app : mother 's maiden name .
Part of my bank identity verification scheme : check .
2nd question from the app : Street you grew up on .
Part of my bank identity verification scheme : check .
Etc , etc... No , but no thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>requiring all the banks and credit card companies to jump through more identity verification hoops before they give someone your money or a line of credit in your nameParticularly when I see some of the info that's being spread far and wide.
A few weeks ago, I get a facebook invitation to a genealogy app.
Since it's something I'd meant to do for a long time and the Internet certainly makes it easier now and FB now has a critical mass that may actually make it work, I think, sure, why not.
First question from the app: mother's maiden name.
Part of my bank identity verification scheme: check.
2nd question from the app: Street you grew up on.
Part of my bank identity verification scheme: check.
Etc, etc... No, but no thanks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429380</id>
	<title>Pond life</title>
	<author>GrahamCox</author>
	<datestamp>1260790560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Couldn't have happened to a nicer piece of pond scum.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't have happened to a nicer piece of pond scum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't have happened to a nicer piece of pond scum.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430060</id>
	<title>Because of transparency, mostly</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1260800220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An important part of the US court system is to be very open in general. That's why there are specific things in the law like the right to confront your accuser. Well another important part is for your defense team, of which you as the defendant are part, to make sure the jury is truly an unbiased group of your peers. It would invite abuse to have a system where the jurors were a secret group that the defense never got to see.</p><p>Yes, it does pose the risk of a defendant attempting to retaliate against jurors, however that is actually extremely rare. It also rarely works out, you'll note that this asshat is now doing more time because of it. There are always tradeoffs, there is no perfect way of doing things and in the US system, transparency of the jury is more important than protecting their identities.</p><p>Also, in general you can speak to the judge privately if an answer is something you aren't willing to make in open court. You can request to approach the bench and talk to them about your concern.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An important part of the US court system is to be very open in general .
That 's why there are specific things in the law like the right to confront your accuser .
Well another important part is for your defense team , of which you as the defendant are part , to make sure the jury is truly an unbiased group of your peers .
It would invite abuse to have a system where the jurors were a secret group that the defense never got to see.Yes , it does pose the risk of a defendant attempting to retaliate against jurors , however that is actually extremely rare .
It also rarely works out , you 'll note that this asshat is now doing more time because of it .
There are always tradeoffs , there is no perfect way of doing things and in the US system , transparency of the jury is more important than protecting their identities.Also , in general you can speak to the judge privately if an answer is something you are n't willing to make in open court .
You can request to approach the bench and talk to them about your concern .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An important part of the US court system is to be very open in general.
That's why there are specific things in the law like the right to confront your accuser.
Well another important part is for your defense team, of which you as the defendant are part, to make sure the jury is truly an unbiased group of your peers.
It would invite abuse to have a system where the jurors were a secret group that the defense never got to see.Yes, it does pose the risk of a defendant attempting to retaliate against jurors, however that is actually extremely rare.
It also rarely works out, you'll note that this asshat is now doing more time because of it.
There are always tradeoffs, there is no perfect way of doing things and in the US system, transparency of the jury is more important than protecting their identities.Also, in general you can speak to the judge privately if an answer is something you aren't willing to make in open court.
You can request to approach the bench and talk to them about your concern.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30432912</id>
	<title>Re:i was called to jury duty once</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1260814860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I actually wanted on the Jury Duty (big software corp was not exciting enough), but was disqualified with this question: "Is a police officer exactly as believable as a citizen?" (although it was worded slightly differently), and my answer was "slightly higher, perhaps 55\%", didn't even have time to give my rationale (they have training in situational awareness and in mentally recording a scene for later documentation).</p></div></blockquote><p>Unsurprising, a bias to favor one class of witness over another by a broad general, status, rather than the particular individual circumstances and qualifications entered into evidence in the cas, if that class of witness is going to show up in the case, is a pretty big reason for disqualifying jurors.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually wanted on the Jury Duty ( big software corp was not exciting enough ) , but was disqualified with this question : " Is a police officer exactly as believable as a citizen ?
" ( although it was worded slightly differently ) , and my answer was " slightly higher , perhaps 55 \ % " , did n't even have time to give my rationale ( they have training in situational awareness and in mentally recording a scene for later documentation ) .Unsurprising , a bias to favor one class of witness over another by a broad general , status , rather than the particular individual circumstances and qualifications entered into evidence in the cas , if that class of witness is going to show up in the case , is a pretty big reason for disqualifying jurors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually wanted on the Jury Duty (big software corp was not exciting enough), but was disqualified with this question: "Is a police officer exactly as believable as a citizen?
" (although it was worded slightly differently), and my answer was "slightly higher, perhaps 55\%", didn't even have time to give my rationale (they have training in situational awareness and in mentally recording a scene for later documentation).Unsurprising, a bias to favor one class of witness over another by a broad general, status, rather than the particular individual circumstances and qualifications entered into evidence in the cas, if that class of witness is going to show up in the case, is a pretty big reason for disqualifying jurors.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30431568</id>
	<title>Nice One!</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1260808920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lovely headline.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lovely headline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lovely headline.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30431330</id>
	<title>Re:"Copyright theft" and *Identity theft"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260807900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the case of copyright violations, you are making a duplicate. You in no way affect the original. Thus, &ldquo;theft&rdquo; is a misnomer.</p><p>In the case of identity theft, a more apt word to describe it would be &ldquo;borrowing&rdquo;. You are using the original, not a copy (it is impossible to copy an identity), and you (negatively) affect the person&rsquo;s financial reputation. Borrowing without permission can legitimately be called &ldquo;theft&rdquo;.</p><p>From a programmatic perspective, the intangible identity is the only &ldquo;real&rdquo; entity and the person himself, his credit cards, bank accounts, usernames and passwords, etc. are only pointers to that identity &ndash; means by which the identity is verified and accessed. In the digital era, your identity is more &ldquo;real&rdquo; than you are &ndash; you exist only in order to regulate everyone else&rsquo;s access to that identity from the end of a touch-tone phone or keyboard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the case of copyright violations , you are making a duplicate .
You in no way affect the original .
Thus ,    theft    is a misnomer.In the case of identity theft , a more apt word to describe it would be    borrowing    .
You are using the original , not a copy ( it is impossible to copy an identity ) , and you ( negatively ) affect the person    s financial reputation .
Borrowing without permission can legitimately be called    theft    .From a programmatic perspective , the intangible identity is the only    real    entity and the person himself , his credit cards , bank accounts , usernames and passwords , etc .
are only pointers to that identity    means by which the identity is verified and accessed .
In the digital era , your identity is more    real    than you are    you exist only in order to regulate everyone else    s access to that identity from the end of a touch-tone phone or keyboard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the case of copyright violations, you are making a duplicate.
You in no way affect the original.
Thus, “theft” is a misnomer.In the case of identity theft, a more apt word to describe it would be “borrowing”.
You are using the original, not a copy (it is impossible to copy an identity), and you (negatively) affect the person’s financial reputation.
Borrowing without permission can legitimately be called “theft”.From a programmatic perspective, the intangible identity is the only “real” entity and the person himself, his credit cards, bank accounts, usernames and passwords, etc.
are only pointers to that identity – means by which the identity is verified and accessed.
In the digital era, your identity is more “real” than you are – you exist only in order to regulate everyone else’s access to that identity from the end of a touch-tone phone or keyboard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429388</id>
	<title>corepirate nazi illuminati still trying....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260790800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>to 'whack' most of US. evile never sleeps.</p><p>the head in the sand approach to consideration for others/the future is definitely going to be costly/fatal for many.</p><p>water will be the next 'commodity' used to control our behaviours, as we suffocate ourselves.</p><p>meanwhile, go jump into your CO factory &amp; go for a spin. you may be right in that it may not matter anymore. we've heard though, that where there's life, there's hope.</p><p>the lights are coming up all over now. get ready to join the creators' wwwildly popular newclear powered planet/population rescue initiative/mandate. it's way user friendly (foolproof), &amp; there's never any liesense fees.</p><p>this post was deleted from earlier storIEs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to 'whack ' most of US .
evile never sleeps.the head in the sand approach to consideration for others/the future is definitely going to be costly/fatal for many.water will be the next 'commodity ' used to control our behaviours , as we suffocate ourselves.meanwhile , go jump into your CO factory &amp; go for a spin .
you may be right in that it may not matter anymore .
we 've heard though , that where there 's life , there 's hope.the lights are coming up all over now .
get ready to join the creators ' wwwildly popular newclear powered planet/population rescue initiative/mandate .
it 's way user friendly ( foolproof ) , &amp; there 's never any liesense fees.this post was deleted from earlier storIEs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to 'whack' most of US.
evile never sleeps.the head in the sand approach to consideration for others/the future is definitely going to be costly/fatal for many.water will be the next 'commodity' used to control our behaviours, as we suffocate ourselves.meanwhile, go jump into your CO factory &amp; go for a spin.
you may be right in that it may not matter anymore.
we've heard though, that where there's life, there's hope.the lights are coming up all over now.
get ready to join the creators' wwwildly popular newclear powered planet/population rescue initiative/mandate.
it's way user friendly (foolproof), &amp; there's never any liesense fees.this post was deleted from earlier storIEs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30434604</id>
	<title>Re:Because of transparency, mostly</title>
	<author>steelfood</author>
	<datestamp>1260823680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it does pose the risk of a defendant attempting to retaliate against jurors, however that is actually extremely rare.</p></div><p>John Gotti III</p><p>'nuff said.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, in general you can speak to the judge privately if an answer is something you aren't willing to make in open court. You can request to approach the bench and talk to them about your concern.</p></div><p>Perhaps this should be mentioned by the judge during the jury selection.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it does pose the risk of a defendant attempting to retaliate against jurors , however that is actually extremely rare.John Gotti III'nuff said.Also , in general you can speak to the judge privately if an answer is something you are n't willing to make in open court .
You can request to approach the bench and talk to them about your concern.Perhaps this should be mentioned by the judge during the jury selection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it does pose the risk of a defendant attempting to retaliate against jurors, however that is actually extremely rare.John Gotti III'nuff said.Also, in general you can speak to the judge privately if an answer is something you aren't willing to make in open court.
You can request to approach the bench and talk to them about your concern.Perhaps this should be mentioned by the judge during the jury selection.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30433208</id>
	<title>Re:What bankers?</title>
	<author>operagost</author>
	<datestamp>1260816300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <tt>But these 'little guys' are getting screwed because of each of the parties you mentioned.</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>Yes, thanks to the TARP that the federal government passed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But these 'little guys ' are getting screwed because of each of the parties you mentioned .
Yes , thanks to the TARP that the federal government passed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> But these 'little guys' are getting screwed because of each of the parties you mentioned.
Yes, thanks to the TARP that the federal government passed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30431254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430938</id>
	<title>Re:What. The. Funk?</title>
	<author>IndustrialComplex</author>
	<datestamp>1260805860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>One, that you can get more jail time for moving 440,000 from one DB column to another than for trying to have someone killed. </i></p><p>Don't underestimate the power of money.</p><p>Take the example of Bob and George.</p><p>At age 18, Bob was shot and killed.<br>At age 18, George was forced into indentured servitude and could never earn enough to buy his freedom.  In addition, due to his inability to raise any money, he was denied access to the life we all know and enjoy today.  He was unable to travel, unable to find a wife, unable to pursue componsation in the courts.  He toiled his entire life for his master, and eventually died in the fields.</p><p>Not saying that number 1 isn't bad.  I'm just saying that financially crippling someone is a lot more heinous than just stealing their wallet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One , that you can get more jail time for moving 440,000 from one DB column to another than for trying to have someone killed .
Do n't underestimate the power of money.Take the example of Bob and George.At age 18 , Bob was shot and killed.At age 18 , George was forced into indentured servitude and could never earn enough to buy his freedom .
In addition , due to his inability to raise any money , he was denied access to the life we all know and enjoy today .
He was unable to travel , unable to find a wife , unable to pursue componsation in the courts .
He toiled his entire life for his master , and eventually died in the fields.Not saying that number 1 is n't bad .
I 'm just saying that financially crippling someone is a lot more heinous than just stealing their wallet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One, that you can get more jail time for moving 440,000 from one DB column to another than for trying to have someone killed.
Don't underestimate the power of money.Take the example of Bob and George.At age 18, Bob was shot and killed.At age 18, George was forced into indentured servitude and could never earn enough to buy his freedom.
In addition, due to his inability to raise any money, he was denied access to the life we all know and enjoy today.
He was unable to travel, unable to find a wife, unable to pursue componsation in the courts.
He toiled his entire life for his master, and eventually died in the fields.Not saying that number 1 isn't bad.
I'm just saying that financially crippling someone is a lot more heinous than just stealing their wallet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429476</id>
	<title>Put the onus on financial institutions</title>
	<author>dikdik</author>
	<datestamp>1260791940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Plain and simple, the only thing that's going to really make a dent in identity theft is to make identities harder to steal, and that means requiring all the banks and credit card companies to jump through more identity verification hoops before they give someone your money or a line of credit in your name.
<p>
Sure, requiring you to go to a licensed notary and have a credit card application notarized might not make it so easy to get credit, but it would also make it harder to get credit in your name.
</p><p>
The banks and credit card companies could do this, but it's more profitable to let people steal your identity and then just jack up fees and interest rates to cover the losses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Plain and simple , the only thing that 's going to really make a dent in identity theft is to make identities harder to steal , and that means requiring all the banks and credit card companies to jump through more identity verification hoops before they give someone your money or a line of credit in your name .
Sure , requiring you to go to a licensed notary and have a credit card application notarized might not make it so easy to get credit , but it would also make it harder to get credit in your name .
The banks and credit card companies could do this , but it 's more profitable to let people steal your identity and then just jack up fees and interest rates to cover the losses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plain and simple, the only thing that's going to really make a dent in identity theft is to make identities harder to steal, and that means requiring all the banks and credit card companies to jump through more identity verification hoops before they give someone your money or a line of credit in your name.
Sure, requiring you to go to a licensed notary and have a credit card application notarized might not make it so easy to get credit, but it would also make it harder to get credit in your name.
The banks and credit card companies could do this, but it's more profitable to let people steal your identity and then just jack up fees and interest rates to cover the losses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429354</id>
	<title>Re:What. The. Funk?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260790020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the same all around the world. You steal a few grand and you get the maximum sentence. You steal double digit millions and you get a bonus. That and the fact that you get harsher sentences for crimes involving money and copyright than murder and violence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the same all around the world .
You steal a few grand and you get the maximum sentence .
You steal double digit millions and you get a bonus .
That and the fact that you get harsher sentences for crimes involving money and copyright than murder and violence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the same all around the world.
You steal a few grand and you get the maximum sentence.
You steal double digit millions and you get a bonus.
That and the fact that you get harsher sentences for crimes involving money and copyright than murder and violence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30445410</id>
	<title>what if Identity Theft cause's suicide</title>
	<author>pgmrdlm</author>
	<datestamp>1260897720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is that considered murder?</p><p>or what if a person who had his Identity stolen attempts suicide? Should that be consdered attempted murder?</p><p>I truely beleive the sentences against people convicted of Identity Theft are to lite. They should carry harsh sentences, comparable to any physical harm sentences handed out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that considered murder ? or what if a person who had his Identity stolen attempts suicide ?
Should that be consdered attempted murder ? I truely beleive the sentences against people convicted of Identity Theft are to lite .
They should carry harsh sentences , comparable to any physical harm sentences handed out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that considered murder?or what if a person who had his Identity stolen attempts suicide?
Should that be consdered attempted murder?I truely beleive the sentences against people convicted of Identity Theft are to lite.
They should carry harsh sentences, comparable to any physical harm sentences handed out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30431254</id>
	<title>Re:What bankers?</title>
	<author>tonyreadsnews</author>
	<datestamp>1260807600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree there is plenty of blame to go around<br>However, you seem to think that all people fit into one of those categories.<br> <br>
What you've missed is that there are 'little guys' who didn't take out a loan they couldn't afford, and didn't make a loan to some high risk person.<br>But these 'little guys' are getting screwed because of each of the parties you mentioned. Some of them have been laid off, some have seen their investments brutalized, some are now stuck in their house because their once 80 LTV is now 105 LTV.<br>These are a larger percentage of those complaining<br>
Not to mention the same 'evil bankers' that made the loans also pushed to get regulations relaxed, which makes them somewhat more responsible as without their reckless behavior this mess <br> <br>Now these 'little guys' find out their tax dollars are going to the same companies that got us into the mess while these companies also are basically getting free money to make new loans and start back with business as usual.
<br> <br>At least that's what I complain about and I'm one of those 'little guys'</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree there is plenty of blame to go aroundHowever , you seem to think that all people fit into one of those categories .
What you 've missed is that there are 'little guys ' who did n't take out a loan they could n't afford , and did n't make a loan to some high risk person.But these 'little guys ' are getting screwed because of each of the parties you mentioned .
Some of them have been laid off , some have seen their investments brutalized , some are now stuck in their house because their once 80 LTV is now 105 LTV.These are a larger percentage of those complaining Not to mention the same 'evil bankers ' that made the loans also pushed to get regulations relaxed , which makes them somewhat more responsible as without their reckless behavior this mess Now these 'little guys ' find out their tax dollars are going to the same companies that got us into the mess while these companies also are basically getting free money to make new loans and start back with business as usual .
At least that 's what I complain about and I 'm one of those 'little guys'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree there is plenty of blame to go aroundHowever, you seem to think that all people fit into one of those categories.
What you've missed is that there are 'little guys' who didn't take out a loan they couldn't afford, and didn't make a loan to some high risk person.But these 'little guys' are getting screwed because of each of the parties you mentioned.
Some of them have been laid off, some have seen their investments brutalized, some are now stuck in their house because their once 80 LTV is now 105 LTV.These are a larger percentage of those complaining
Not to mention the same 'evil bankers' that made the loans also pushed to get regulations relaxed, which makes them somewhat more responsible as without their reckless behavior this mess  Now these 'little guys' find out their tax dollars are going to the same companies that got us into the mess while these companies also are basically getting free money to make new loans and start back with business as usual.
At least that's what I complain about and I'm one of those 'little guys'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429524</id>
	<title>Re:What. The. Funk?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260792540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No one created the justice system, it was there when we got here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No one created the justice system , it was there when we got here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one created the justice system, it was there when we got here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30440484</id>
	<title>Re:Because of transparency, mostly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260813360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...to make sure the jury is truly an unbiased group of your peers.</p></div><p>A random selection would be unbiased.  A selection stage, of whatever sort, introduces bias, right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...to make sure the jury is truly an unbiased group of your peers.A random selection would be unbiased .
A selection stage , of whatever sort , introduces bias , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...to make sure the jury is truly an unbiased group of your peers.A random selection would be unbiased.
A selection stage, of whatever sort, introduces bias, right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429538</id>
	<title>Re:What. The. Funk?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260792720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a strange "justice" system we've created for ourselves.</p><p>Who exactly is this "we" of whom you speak? I certainly don't remember taking part in this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a strange " justice " system we 've created for ourselves.Who exactly is this " we " of whom you speak ?
I certainly do n't remember taking part in this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a strange "justice" system we've created for ourselves.Who exactly is this "we" of whom you speak?
I certainly don't remember taking part in this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430798</id>
	<title>Re:i was called to jury duty once</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260805140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>they were even asking me and others questions about our siblings and what they did (maybe they were asking that because the defendant killed a sibling?</p></div><p>In a criminal case, they're generally going to drop potential jurors who have a close family member in law enforcement or incarcerated, etc... as that might give the potential juror a stronger-than-usual ability to identify with one side or another on the case.  That much is reasonable...</p><p>If you want to be on a jury (I did, and have), especially for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury\_nullification" title="wikipedia.org">jury nullification</a> [wikipedia.org] purposes, be dumb and malleable during that interviewing process... not outrageously stupid, just a nodding your head in the direction the lawyers want you to sort of way; keep your eyes wide.  Oh, and never admit to knowing what Jury Nullification is.  The last thing you want to do is what another poster here mentioned and that is give well-reasoned, articulate answers that show you've thought about the relevant topics before and have come to conclusions.  Be as much of an Every Man as you possibly can in your responses.  If asked whether you agree with the laws as written, the answer is "yes."  Both the prosecution and the defense want to sway you with emotion, and they want to target average Joes, because that's who they're trained to appeal to.  A highly rational person is the best potential juror for justice, and the worst potential juror from a lawyer's perspective.</p><p>As for "getting out of" jury duty vs. trying to get in... consider that it is <strong>one of the few and only ways an individual citizen can make a significant difference in how the government treats its citizens</strong>, in the face of massive lobbying efforts, emotionally manipulated masses, etc... having a stranglehold on the legislative branch, and massive bureaucratic inertia on the executive branch.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>they were even asking me and others questions about our siblings and what they did ( maybe they were asking that because the defendant killed a sibling ? In a criminal case , they 're generally going to drop potential jurors who have a close family member in law enforcement or incarcerated , etc... as that might give the potential juror a stronger-than-usual ability to identify with one side or another on the case .
That much is reasonable...If you want to be on a jury ( I did , and have ) , especially for jury nullification [ wikipedia.org ] purposes , be dumb and malleable during that interviewing process... not outrageously stupid , just a nodding your head in the direction the lawyers want you to sort of way ; keep your eyes wide .
Oh , and never admit to knowing what Jury Nullification is .
The last thing you want to do is what another poster here mentioned and that is give well-reasoned , articulate answers that show you 've thought about the relevant topics before and have come to conclusions .
Be as much of an Every Man as you possibly can in your responses .
If asked whether you agree with the laws as written , the answer is " yes .
" Both the prosecution and the defense want to sway you with emotion , and they want to target average Joes , because that 's who they 're trained to appeal to .
A highly rational person is the best potential juror for justice , and the worst potential juror from a lawyer 's perspective.As for " getting out of " jury duty vs. trying to get in... consider that it is one of the few and only ways an individual citizen can make a significant difference in how the government treats its citizens , in the face of massive lobbying efforts , emotionally manipulated masses , etc... having a stranglehold on the legislative branch , and massive bureaucratic inertia on the executive branch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they were even asking me and others questions about our siblings and what they did (maybe they were asking that because the defendant killed a sibling?In a criminal case, they're generally going to drop potential jurors who have a close family member in law enforcement or incarcerated, etc... as that might give the potential juror a stronger-than-usual ability to identify with one side or another on the case.
That much is reasonable...If you want to be on a jury (I did, and have), especially for jury nullification [wikipedia.org] purposes, be dumb and malleable during that interviewing process... not outrageously stupid, just a nodding your head in the direction the lawyers want you to sort of way; keep your eyes wide.
Oh, and never admit to knowing what Jury Nullification is.
The last thing you want to do is what another poster here mentioned and that is give well-reasoned, articulate answers that show you've thought about the relevant topics before and have come to conclusions.
Be as much of an Every Man as you possibly can in your responses.
If asked whether you agree with the laws as written, the answer is "yes.
"  Both the prosecution and the defense want to sway you with emotion, and they want to target average Joes, because that's who they're trained to appeal to.
A highly rational person is the best potential juror for justice, and the worst potential juror from a lawyer's perspective.As for "getting out of" jury duty vs. trying to get in... consider that it is one of the few and only ways an individual citizen can make a significant difference in how the government treats its citizens, in the face of massive lobbying efforts, emotionally manipulated masses, etc... having a stranglehold on the legislative branch, and massive bureaucratic inertia on the executive branch.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429636</id>
	<title>surely this plan must eventually succeed</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1260794760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The authorities learned of the murder-for-hire plot, charged him with it and transferred him to a different jail facility, There he approach[ed] yet another individual and proposed that he kill both the original witness and the person Valkovich had attempted to hire for the first hit.</p></div></blockquote><p>A minor setback, really--- clearly he's now just in need of a fourth person willing to commit <i>three</i> murders for hire...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The authorities learned of the murder-for-hire plot , charged him with it and transferred him to a different jail facility , There he approach [ ed ] yet another individual and proposed that he kill both the original witness and the person Valkovich had attempted to hire for the first hit.A minor setback , really--- clearly he 's now just in need of a fourth person willing to commit three murders for hire.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The authorities learned of the murder-for-hire plot, charged him with it and transferred him to a different jail facility, There he approach[ed] yet another individual and proposed that he kill both the original witness and the person Valkovich had attempted to hire for the first hit.A minor setback, really--- clearly he's now just in need of a fourth person willing to commit three murders for hire...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30431848</id>
	<title>Re:What bankers?</title>
	<author>ahodgson</author>
	<datestamp>1260809940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The recent and ongoing financial collapse was most certainly caused by fraudulent actions. Millions of them.</p><p>- Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, and Tim Geitner, for "pursuading" Congress and President Clinton to repeal Glass/Steagall, which enabled the disaster to enfold<br>- every borrowers who fraudulently claimed income they didn't have, or expected to sell their home at a profit before their subprime or ALT-A mortgage reset to full payments<br>- lenders fraudulently giving mortgages to borrowers who couldn't document income<br>- lenders fraudulently giving mortgages to "subprime" and ALT-A borrowers who they knew couldn't pay the full reset payment<br>- lenders and investment banks fraudulently bundling up said mortgages and selling them to investors as AAA investments - while also shorting the hell out of them in their investment arms (demonstrating that they knew they were going to tank)<br>- ratings agencies for enabling the AAA ratings on securities they didn't see source documentation for<br>- AIG and any other company selling CDS they didn't have the equity to back<br>- every company buying a CDS from a company unable to pay for the sole reason of being able take the "protected" loan off their balance sheet and not count it against leverage limits<br>- Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke for enabling bubble after bubble with too loose monetary policy, while fraudulently claiming there was no bubble<br>- Congress, President Bush, and Henry Paulson for presiding over the runup and initiating the failed bailout strategy<br>- President Obama for hiring Rubin, Summers and Geitner as his economic team to "fix" the problem, bringing us full circle</p><p>Hey, and that's only in the US. UK and European banks did all the same things. And let's not even talk about the China bubble. No shortage of fraud to go around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The recent and ongoing financial collapse was most certainly caused by fraudulent actions .
Millions of them.- Robert Rubin , Larry Summers , and Tim Geitner , for " pursuading " Congress and President Clinton to repeal Glass/Steagall , which enabled the disaster to enfold- every borrowers who fraudulently claimed income they did n't have , or expected to sell their home at a profit before their subprime or ALT-A mortgage reset to full payments- lenders fraudulently giving mortgages to borrowers who could n't document income- lenders fraudulently giving mortgages to " subprime " and ALT-A borrowers who they knew could n't pay the full reset payment- lenders and investment banks fraudulently bundling up said mortgages and selling them to investors as AAA investments - while also shorting the hell out of them in their investment arms ( demonstrating that they knew they were going to tank ) - ratings agencies for enabling the AAA ratings on securities they did n't see source documentation for- AIG and any other company selling CDS they did n't have the equity to back- every company buying a CDS from a company unable to pay for the sole reason of being able take the " protected " loan off their balance sheet and not count it against leverage limits- Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke for enabling bubble after bubble with too loose monetary policy , while fraudulently claiming there was no bubble- Congress , President Bush , and Henry Paulson for presiding over the runup and initiating the failed bailout strategy- President Obama for hiring Rubin , Summers and Geitner as his economic team to " fix " the problem , bringing us full circleHey , and that 's only in the US .
UK and European banks did all the same things .
And let 's not even talk about the China bubble .
No shortage of fraud to go around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The recent and ongoing financial collapse was most certainly caused by fraudulent actions.
Millions of them.- Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, and Tim Geitner, for "pursuading" Congress and President Clinton to repeal Glass/Steagall, which enabled the disaster to enfold- every borrowers who fraudulently claimed income they didn't have, or expected to sell their home at a profit before their subprime or ALT-A mortgage reset to full payments- lenders fraudulently giving mortgages to borrowers who couldn't document income- lenders fraudulently giving mortgages to "subprime" and ALT-A borrowers who they knew couldn't pay the full reset payment- lenders and investment banks fraudulently bundling up said mortgages and selling them to investors as AAA investments - while also shorting the hell out of them in their investment arms (demonstrating that they knew they were going to tank)- ratings agencies for enabling the AAA ratings on securities they didn't see source documentation for- AIG and any other company selling CDS they didn't have the equity to back- every company buying a CDS from a company unable to pay for the sole reason of being able take the "protected" loan off their balance sheet and not count it against leverage limits- Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke for enabling bubble after bubble with too loose monetary policy, while fraudulently claiming there was no bubble- Congress, President Bush, and Henry Paulson for presiding over the runup and initiating the failed bailout strategy- President Obama for hiring Rubin, Summers and Geitner as his economic team to "fix" the problem, bringing us full circleHey, and that's only in the US.
UK and European banks did all the same things.
And let's not even talk about the China bubble.
No shortage of fraud to go around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30432078</id>
	<title>Re:Put the onus on financial institutions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260811080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's really a bigger condemnation of the "security questions" form banks. The questions they provide tend to fall into two categories, 1) publicly available information and 2) personal preferences that are quite likely to change over time (what was my favorite color 3 years ago...?) They really need to find a better solution to the problem of people forgetting passwords.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's really a bigger condemnation of the " security questions " form banks .
The questions they provide tend to fall into two categories , 1 ) publicly available information and 2 ) personal preferences that are quite likely to change over time ( what was my favorite color 3 years ago... ?
) They really need to find a better solution to the problem of people forgetting passwords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's really a bigger condemnation of the "security questions" form banks.
The questions they provide tend to fall into two categories, 1) publicly available information and 2) personal preferences that are quite likely to change over time (what was my favorite color 3 years ago...?
) They really need to find a better solution to the problem of people forgetting passwords.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429732</id>
	<title>Re:What. The. Funk?</title>
	<author>brunes69</author>
	<datestamp>1260796380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 30 years for fraud is most likely 5 years per sentence * 6 people, or 3 years per sentence * 10 people, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 30 years for fraud is most likely 5 years per sentence * 6 people , or 3 years per sentence * 10 people , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 30 years for fraud is most likely 5 years per sentence * 6 people, or 3 years per sentence * 10 people, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429474</id>
	<title>Not idle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260791940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is this 'idle'? He tried to f.....g kill people!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this 'idle ' ?
He tried to f.....g kill people !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this 'idle'?
He tried to f.....g kill people!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30442980</id>
	<title>Paper trail</title>
	<author>moonshine1948</author>
	<datestamp>1260886500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dead witnesses or not surely Pavel would still be convicted of the identity theft and fraud charges. He transferred peoples money into paypal accounts for gods sake. There would be a paper trail a mile long all pointing directly to Pavel's pocket. <a href="http://www.camping-r-us.com.au/" title="camping-r-us.com.au" rel="nofollow">Camping</a> [camping-r-us.com.au]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dead witnesses or not surely Pavel would still be convicted of the identity theft and fraud charges .
He transferred peoples money into paypal accounts for gods sake .
There would be a paper trail a mile long all pointing directly to Pavel 's pocket .
Camping [ camping-r-us.com.au ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dead witnesses or not surely Pavel would still be convicted of the identity theft and fraud charges.
He transferred peoples money into paypal accounts for gods sake.
There would be a paper trail a mile long all pointing directly to Pavel's pocket.
Camping [camping-r-us.com.au]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30431574</id>
	<title>Re:Put the onus on financial institutions</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1260808920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> the identity thief has more and better forms of ID then the real person does....</p></div><p>That shouldn't* even be possible. By the time I applied for credit I can think of more than 10 pieces of plastic in my wallet that have MY signature on it, and at least 2 that have my Picture on it. And if I lose this wallet, You can bet for sure the first thing I'm doing is cancelling any and all credit cards, and informing my bank not to re-activate them until they see me in person.</p><p>And the bank has my picture on file, so should I show up there one day, they can't go "I can't help you" over not ensuring my identity because they are 100\% capable of identifying me without the use of any identification on me. They have my signature, a picture of me, as well as a handful of other personal information not found in my wallet (Mother's maiden name, etc).</p><p>*I say shouldn't because I'm sure that is the case, but I know in my situation it isn't the case, and everyone should be taking these precautions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the identity thief has more and better forms of ID then the real person does....That should n't * even be possible .
By the time I applied for credit I can think of more than 10 pieces of plastic in my wallet that have MY signature on it , and at least 2 that have my Picture on it .
And if I lose this wallet , You can bet for sure the first thing I 'm doing is cancelling any and all credit cards , and informing my bank not to re-activate them until they see me in person.And the bank has my picture on file , so should I show up there one day , they ca n't go " I ca n't help you " over not ensuring my identity because they are 100 \ % capable of identifying me without the use of any identification on me .
They have my signature , a picture of me , as well as a handful of other personal information not found in my wallet ( Mother 's maiden name , etc ) .
* I say should n't because I 'm sure that is the case , but I know in my situation it is n't the case , and everyone should be taking these precautions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> the identity thief has more and better forms of ID then the real person does....That shouldn't* even be possible.
By the time I applied for credit I can think of more than 10 pieces of plastic in my wallet that have MY signature on it, and at least 2 that have my Picture on it.
And if I lose this wallet, You can bet for sure the first thing I'm doing is cancelling any and all credit cards, and informing my bank not to re-activate them until they see me in person.And the bank has my picture on file, so should I show up there one day, they can't go "I can't help you" over not ensuring my identity because they are 100\% capable of identifying me without the use of any identification on me.
They have my signature, a picture of me, as well as a handful of other personal information not found in my wallet (Mother's maiden name, etc).
*I say shouldn't because I'm sure that is the case, but I know in my situation it isn't the case, and everyone should be taking these precautions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430694</id>
	<title>Re:What. The. Funk?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260804660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You steal a few grand and you get the maximum sentence. You steal double digit millions and you get a bonus.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm sure Bernie Madoff would disagree with you...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You steal a few grand and you get the maximum sentence .
You steal double digit millions and you get a bonus.I 'm sure Bernie Madoff would disagree with you.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You steal a few grand and you get the maximum sentence.
You steal double digit millions and you get a bonus.I'm sure Bernie Madoff would disagree with you...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430576</id>
	<title>To Those Interested...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260804120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To those interested, and who know someone in the prison where Pavel Valkovich will end up; just cough up a Franklin note to your buddy in prison and he can solicit all the special attention Valkovich can handle and more. Money and cigarettes go a long way in prison and your prison buddy could use some leverage cash.<br>Why not throw ol' Pavel a special party? With a name like Valkovich the Aryan brotherhood won't take care of him and he isn't black or hispanic so there isn't anyone to be his friend. My guess is he is pretty well f**ked when he makes it to General Population and you can't live in Punk City forever. Lol, he could get so turned out he will wear a diaper catch all for the rest of his life. Probably won't need any money.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Vivid yet likely scenarios.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To those interested , and who know someone in the prison where Pavel Valkovich will end up ; just cough up a Franklin note to your buddy in prison and he can solicit all the special attention Valkovich can handle and more .
Money and cigarettes go a long way in prison and your prison buddy could use some leverage cash.Why not throw ol ' Pavel a special party ?
With a name like Valkovich the Aryan brotherhood wo n't take care of him and he is n't black or hispanic so there is n't anyone to be his friend .
My guess is he is pretty well f * * ked when he makes it to General Population and you ca n't live in Punk City forever .
Lol , he could get so turned out he will wear a diaper catch all for the rest of his life .
Probably wo n't need any money .
            Vivid yet likely scenarios .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To those interested, and who know someone in the prison where Pavel Valkovich will end up; just cough up a Franklin note to your buddy in prison and he can solicit all the special attention Valkovich can handle and more.
Money and cigarettes go a long way in prison and your prison buddy could use some leverage cash.Why not throw ol' Pavel a special party?
With a name like Valkovich the Aryan brotherhood won't take care of him and he isn't black or hispanic so there isn't anyone to be his friend.
My guess is he is pretty well f**ked when he makes it to General Population and you can't live in Punk City forever.
Lol, he could get so turned out he will wear a diaper catch all for the rest of his life.
Probably won't need any money.
            Vivid yet likely scenarios.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30434058</id>
	<title>Re:What bankers?</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1260820740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Which bankers committed trillions of dollars of fraud? I've not heard of this.</p></div><p>That's a good  point. It wasn't actually bankers that did it. It was an insurance company named AIG. They wrote billions of dollars in insurance policies on securities without proper underwriting. And they wrote something like $5 in coverage for every $1 of securities insured.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which bankers committed trillions of dollars of fraud ?
I 've not heard of this.That 's a good point .
It was n't actually bankers that did it .
It was an insurance company named AIG .
They wrote billions of dollars in insurance policies on securities without proper underwriting .
And they wrote something like $ 5 in coverage for every $ 1 of securities insured .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which bankers committed trillions of dollars of fraud?
I've not heard of this.That's a good  point.
It wasn't actually bankers that did it.
It was an insurance company named AIG.
They wrote billions of dollars in insurance policies on securities without proper underwriting.
And they wrote something like $5 in coverage for every $1 of securities insured.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30433424</id>
	<title>wtf?</title>
	<author>jpfulton248</author>
	<datestamp>1260817500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>seriously? wtf? people are crazy</htmltext>
<tokenext>seriously ?
wtf ? people are crazy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>seriously?
wtf? people are crazy</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30431320</id>
	<title>Re:i was called to jury duty once</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260807840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Better yet, just ask the judge this question:
<p>
"Is jury nullification still valid in this courtroom?"
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Better yet , just ask the judge this question : " Is jury nullification still valid in this courtroom ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better yet, just ask the judge this question:

"Is jury nullification still valid in this courtroom?
"
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429788</id>
	<title>Re:What. The. Funk?</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1260797280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
He attempted to steal $440,000
</p><p>
The government has determined that a human life is worth $293,000
</p><p>
Since he attempted to steal  moneys amounting to <b>1.5x</b> of the value of a human life, he was sentenced to a commensurate   jail term for the respective offenses.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He attempted to steal $ 440,000 The government has determined that a human life is worth $ 293,000 Since he attempted to steal moneys amounting to 1.5x of the value of a human life , he was sentenced to a commensurate jail term for the respective offenses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
He attempted to steal $440,000

The government has determined that a human life is worth $293,000

Since he attempted to steal  moneys amounting to 1.5x of the value of a human life, he was sentenced to a commensurate   jail term for the respective offenses.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30432270</id>
	<title>Re:"Copyright theft" and *Identity theft"</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1260812220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>. By changing the name from fraud to identity theft, they are attempting to make it less clear and obvious who the victim is.</p></div><p>I would argue the opposite.  By stating "identity theft" there is no doubt of who the victim is.  By more accurately calling it "fraud", now it's much less clear for the victim could be the merchant, the bank, or the person.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.
By changing the name from fraud to identity theft , they are attempting to make it less clear and obvious who the victim is.I would argue the opposite .
By stating " identity theft " there is no doubt of who the victim is .
By more accurately calling it " fraud " , now it 's much less clear for the victim could be the merchant , the bank , or the person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
By changing the name from fraud to identity theft, they are attempting to make it less clear and obvious who the victim is.I would argue the opposite.
By stating "identity theft" there is no doubt of who the victim is.
By more accurately calling it "fraud", now it's much less clear for the victim could be the merchant, the bank, or the person.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30434758</id>
	<title>Re:i was called to jury duty once</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260781320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>They don't want people who think on a jury. They only want people who can be easily swayed by emotional arguments. Didn't you know that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't want people who think on a jury .
They only want people who can be easily swayed by emotional arguments .
Did n't you know that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't want people who think on a jury.
They only want people who can be easily swayed by emotional arguments.
Didn't you know that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30431400</id>
	<title>Re:"Copyright theft" and *Identity theft"</title>
	<author>tonyreadsnews</author>
	<datestamp>1260808260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> someone is actively out there claiming to be someone else while that someone else is thereafter doubted as to who he is. Not sure that actually happens though</p></div><p>But this is exactly what happens. someone out there claims to be you and applies for credit in your name. That person may or may not continue to pose as you in getting more credit or when showing ID for the credit he has in your name. Even if the person stops claiming to be you, the damage is done to your name.
<br> <br>Just because the person isn't actively 'being you' every day doesn't negate the fact that for a brief moment they did act like you.<br>That's like saying if I stole a car, drove far away, and then ditched the car that I didn't really steal the car because I didn't keep it.
<br> <br>I do agree with everything you said about the banks and shop keepers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>someone is actively out there claiming to be someone else while that someone else is thereafter doubted as to who he is .
Not sure that actually happens thoughBut this is exactly what happens .
someone out there claims to be you and applies for credit in your name .
That person may or may not continue to pose as you in getting more credit or when showing ID for the credit he has in your name .
Even if the person stops claiming to be you , the damage is done to your name .
Just because the person is n't actively 'being you ' every day does n't negate the fact that for a brief moment they did act like you.That 's like saying if I stole a car , drove far away , and then ditched the car that I did n't really steal the car because I did n't keep it .
I do agree with everything you said about the banks and shop keepers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> someone is actively out there claiming to be someone else while that someone else is thereafter doubted as to who he is.
Not sure that actually happens thoughBut this is exactly what happens.
someone out there claims to be you and applies for credit in your name.
That person may or may not continue to pose as you in getting more credit or when showing ID for the credit he has in your name.
Even if the person stops claiming to be you, the damage is done to your name.
Just because the person isn't actively 'being you' every day doesn't negate the fact that for a brief moment they did act like you.That's like saying if I stole a car, drove far away, and then ditched the car that I didn't really steal the car because I didn't keep it.
I do agree with everything you said about the banks and shop keepers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30432300</id>
	<title>Re:What bankers?</title>
	<author>vectorstream</author>
	<datestamp>1260812340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I second that through and through, it's a perverse musical chairs sort of game where those too slow or just plain stupid get left holding a bag full with crap. I've seen the poor souls who combined as a family make like 50,000 a year before taxes and they try to "buy" a house with what's left. I'm not talking about the flippers who if hey were smart dropped out of the market in 2007 at the peak of the price bubble. I mean people who somehow believed that what was meant to happen wouldn't happed - not to them anyway. With sufficient numbers of those optimists all it takes is: A./Friendly credit-rating firms B./ Even friendlier mortgage processors who'd arrange mortgage for anybody with a pulse as long as the risk gets spread afterwards via CDOs and other derivative crap and C./ totally hapless regulators who never really use whatever little powers they have left to actually try and stop this crazy train going. At the end it wouldn't have been anything wrong with the picture above if it wasn't for the fact that the guilty parties more or less survived for number of reasons and therefore completely destroyed the central tenet of the neoliberal economy: allowing the failed ones to disappear is good. Just like greed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I second that through and through , it 's a perverse musical chairs sort of game where those too slow or just plain stupid get left holding a bag full with crap .
I 've seen the poor souls who combined as a family make like 50,000 a year before taxes and they try to " buy " a house with what 's left .
I 'm not talking about the flippers who if hey were smart dropped out of the market in 2007 at the peak of the price bubble .
I mean people who somehow believed that what was meant to happen would n't happed - not to them anyway .
With sufficient numbers of those optimists all it takes is : A./Friendly credit-rating firms B./ Even friendlier mortgage processors who 'd arrange mortgage for anybody with a pulse as long as the risk gets spread afterwards via CDOs and other derivative crap and C./ totally hapless regulators who never really use whatever little powers they have left to actually try and stop this crazy train going .
At the end it would n't have been anything wrong with the picture above if it was n't for the fact that the guilty parties more or less survived for number of reasons and therefore completely destroyed the central tenet of the neoliberal economy : allowing the failed ones to disappear is good .
Just like greed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I second that through and through, it's a perverse musical chairs sort of game where those too slow or just plain stupid get left holding a bag full with crap.
I've seen the poor souls who combined as a family make like 50,000 a year before taxes and they try to "buy" a house with what's left.
I'm not talking about the flippers who if hey were smart dropped out of the market in 2007 at the peak of the price bubble.
I mean people who somehow believed that what was meant to happen wouldn't happed - not to them anyway.
With sufficient numbers of those optimists all it takes is: A./Friendly credit-rating firms B./ Even friendlier mortgage processors who'd arrange mortgage for anybody with a pulse as long as the risk gets spread afterwards via CDOs and other derivative crap and C./ totally hapless regulators who never really use whatever little powers they have left to actually try and stop this crazy train going.
At the end it wouldn't have been anything wrong with the picture above if it wasn't for the fact that the guilty parties more or less survived for number of reasons and therefore completely destroyed the central tenet of the neoliberal economy: allowing the failed ones to disappear is good.
Just like greed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429996</id>
	<title>Re:Put the onus on financial institutions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260799620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, there <i>is</i> <a href="https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/" title="pcisecuritystandards.org" rel="nofollow">a voluntary consortium of credit card firms seeking to enforce a standard for firms that process/store customer credit card information</a> [pcisecuritystandards.org]:</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>The PCI Security Standards Council is an open global forum for the ongoing development, enhancement, storage, dissemination and implementation of security standards for account data protection.</i></p><p><i>The PCI Security Standards Council&rsquo;s mission is to enhance payment account data security by driving education and awareness of the PCI Security Standards. The organization was founded by American Express, Discover Financial Services, JCB International, MasterCard Worldwide, and Visa, Inc.</i></p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , there is a voluntary consortium of credit card firms seeking to enforce a standard for firms that process/store customer credit card information [ pcisecuritystandards.org ] : The PCI Security Standards Council is an open global forum for the ongoing development , enhancement , storage , dissemination and implementation of security standards for account data protection.The PCI Security Standards Council    s mission is to enhance payment account data security by driving education and awareness of the PCI Security Standards .
The organization was founded by American Express , Discover Financial Services , JCB International , MasterCard Worldwide , and Visa , Inc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, there is a voluntary consortium of credit card firms seeking to enforce a standard for firms that process/store customer credit card information [pcisecuritystandards.org]: The PCI Security Standards Council is an open global forum for the ongoing development, enhancement, storage, dissemination and implementation of security standards for account data protection.The PCI Security Standards Council’s mission is to enhance payment account data security by driving education and awareness of the PCI Security Standards.
The organization was founded by American Express, Discover Financial Services, JCB International, MasterCard Worldwide, and Visa, Inc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429778</id>
	<title>i was called to jury duty once</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1260797040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and the case was a triple murder, drug related, in upper manhattan. this was being tried at the downtown manhattan courthouse</p><p>i was winnowed down to the final 20, almost an alternate juror. what surprised me was all of this personal identifying information was being disclosed, about me and a whole bunch of other people, while the defendant, ostensibly a triple murdering drug dealer, with obvious possible ties to organized crime, was sitting there hearing all of this personally identifying info about people who were going to judge him, and he was even taking notes. they were even asking me and others questions about our siblings and what they did (maybe they were asking that because the defendant killed a sibling? i never heard any further details of the crime after i was weaned out and put back in the snooze room)</p><p>so why is it, in the us court system at least, that the identity of witnesses and jurors is given so much free play with sleaze bag defendants who usually have no problem ordering hits for all sorts of reasons, not least of which the desire to avoid jail time. surely there can be more anonymity, no? i don't understand the status quo</p><p>ps:<br>notice to anyone who wants to get off jury duty:<br>when they ask you if you would consider other people's opinion when making up your mind, or if you would make up your mind on your own, answer (in my case honestly), that you wouldn't care what other people on the jury thought, that you would make up your mind on your own... booted</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and the case was a triple murder , drug related , in upper manhattan .
this was being tried at the downtown manhattan courthousei was winnowed down to the final 20 , almost an alternate juror .
what surprised me was all of this personal identifying information was being disclosed , about me and a whole bunch of other people , while the defendant , ostensibly a triple murdering drug dealer , with obvious possible ties to organized crime , was sitting there hearing all of this personally identifying info about people who were going to judge him , and he was even taking notes .
they were even asking me and others questions about our siblings and what they did ( maybe they were asking that because the defendant killed a sibling ?
i never heard any further details of the crime after i was weaned out and put back in the snooze room ) so why is it , in the us court system at least , that the identity of witnesses and jurors is given so much free play with sleaze bag defendants who usually have no problem ordering hits for all sorts of reasons , not least of which the desire to avoid jail time .
surely there can be more anonymity , no ?
i do n't understand the status quops : notice to anyone who wants to get off jury duty : when they ask you if you would consider other people 's opinion when making up your mind , or if you would make up your mind on your own , answer ( in my case honestly ) , that you would n't care what other people on the jury thought , that you would make up your mind on your own... booted</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and the case was a triple murder, drug related, in upper manhattan.
this was being tried at the downtown manhattan courthousei was winnowed down to the final 20, almost an alternate juror.
what surprised me was all of this personal identifying information was being disclosed, about me and a whole bunch of other people, while the defendant, ostensibly a triple murdering drug dealer, with obvious possible ties to organized crime, was sitting there hearing all of this personally identifying info about people who were going to judge him, and he was even taking notes.
they were even asking me and others questions about our siblings and what they did (maybe they were asking that because the defendant killed a sibling?
i never heard any further details of the crime after i was weaned out and put back in the snooze room)so why is it, in the us court system at least, that the identity of witnesses and jurors is given so much free play with sleaze bag defendants who usually have no problem ordering hits for all sorts of reasons, not least of which the desire to avoid jail time.
surely there can be more anonymity, no?
i don't understand the status quops:notice to anyone who wants to get off jury duty:when they ask you if you would consider other people's opinion when making up your mind, or if you would make up your mind on your own, answer (in my case honestly), that you wouldn't care what other people on the jury thought, that you would make up your mind on your own... booted</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30431316</id>
	<title>Re:What. The. Funk?</title>
	<author>inviolet</author>
	<datestamp>1260807840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>[It amazes me] that you can get more jail time for moving [$]440,000 from one DB column to another than for trying to have someone killed.</p></div></blockquote><p>From the point of view of the tribe, it makes sense.  A random individual's expected total lifetime contribution is about a million dollars (give or take depending on education level etc. etc.).  Those individuals place a higher value upon their own lives, of course, and has been measured at about six million dollars by statistically analyzing the higher salaries demanded for riskier jobs... but again, their value to the tribe is less than their value to themselves.
</p><p>So, as far as the chief is concerned, killing one tribe member is a loss of about a million, whereas transferring $440 million from useful investments into dead-end consumption is vastly more damaging.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ It amazes me ] that you can get more jail time for moving [ $ ] 440,000 from one DB column to another than for trying to have someone killed.From the point of view of the tribe , it makes sense .
A random individual 's expected total lifetime contribution is about a million dollars ( give or take depending on education level etc .
etc. ) . Those individuals place a higher value upon their own lives , of course , and has been measured at about six million dollars by statistically analyzing the higher salaries demanded for riskier jobs... but again , their value to the tribe is less than their value to themselves .
So , as far as the chief is concerned , killing one tribe member is a loss of about a million , whereas transferring $ 440 million from useful investments into dead-end consumption is vastly more damaging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[It amazes me] that you can get more jail time for moving [$]440,000 from one DB column to another than for trying to have someone killed.From the point of view of the tribe, it makes sense.
A random individual's expected total lifetime contribution is about a million dollars (give or take depending on education level etc.
etc.).  Those individuals place a higher value upon their own lives, of course, and has been measured at about six million dollars by statistically analyzing the higher salaries demanded for riskier jobs... but again, their value to the tribe is less than their value to themselves.
So, as far as the chief is concerned, killing one tribe member is a loss of about a million, whereas transferring $440 million from useful investments into dead-end consumption is vastly more damaging.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430340</id>
	<title>Re:What. The. Funk?</title>
	<author>elnyka</author>
	<datestamp>1260802500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>Valkovich will face a statutory maximum of 50 years in prison: 20 years for the murder-for-hire and 30 years for the bank fraud.</p></div></blockquote><p>Two things amaze me:

</p><p>One, that you can get more jail time for moving 440,000 from one DB column to another than for trying to have someone killed.

</p><p>Two, that actual bankers that committed fraud to the tune of <em>trillions</em> were punished by (at most) being handsomely paid off and sentenced to go golfing for the rest of their lives.

</p><p>What a strange "justice" system we've created for ourselves.</p></div><p>One. Laws do not get implemented in pairs. That is, legislators do not sit down and say, "umh, what a nice day, let's punish fraud more severely than attempted murder." Also, federal and state laws do not evolve in parallel either. So it is all conceivable that in a union like the US you'll have punishment discrepancies like that. The only fairness you get is the fairness of a fair trail. It is not strange at all. Legislation can (and might or might not) change those punishment discrepancies (for better or worse.) It's not a frozen thing, and it is not strange at all.</p><p>

Two. Actual bankers did not commit fraud. I know what you are trying to say, <b>BUT</b>, the legal term fraud has a very specific meaning. To assign blame, or to accuse, you need to use the appropriate terms of accusation for it to make sense.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Valkovich will face a statutory maximum of 50 years in prison : 20 years for the murder-for-hire and 30 years for the bank fraud.Two things amaze me : One , that you can get more jail time for moving 440,000 from one DB column to another than for trying to have someone killed .
Two , that actual bankers that committed fraud to the tune of trillions were punished by ( at most ) being handsomely paid off and sentenced to go golfing for the rest of their lives .
What a strange " justice " system we 've created for ourselves.One .
Laws do not get implemented in pairs .
That is , legislators do not sit down and say , " umh , what a nice day , let 's punish fraud more severely than attempted murder .
" Also , federal and state laws do not evolve in parallel either .
So it is all conceivable that in a union like the US you 'll have punishment discrepancies like that .
The only fairness you get is the fairness of a fair trail .
It is not strange at all .
Legislation can ( and might or might not ) change those punishment discrepancies ( for better or worse .
) It 's not a frozen thing , and it is not strange at all .
Two. Actual bankers did not commit fraud .
I know what you are trying to say , BUT , the legal term fraud has a very specific meaning .
To assign blame , or to accuse , you need to use the appropriate terms of accusation for it to make sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Valkovich will face a statutory maximum of 50 years in prison: 20 years for the murder-for-hire and 30 years for the bank fraud.Two things amaze me:

One, that you can get more jail time for moving 440,000 from one DB column to another than for trying to have someone killed.
Two, that actual bankers that committed fraud to the tune of trillions were punished by (at most) being handsomely paid off and sentenced to go golfing for the rest of their lives.
What a strange "justice" system we've created for ourselves.One.
Laws do not get implemented in pairs.
That is, legislators do not sit down and say, "umh, what a nice day, let's punish fraud more severely than attempted murder.
" Also, federal and state laws do not evolve in parallel either.
So it is all conceivable that in a union like the US you'll have punishment discrepancies like that.
The only fairness you get is the fairness of a fair trail.
It is not strange at all.
Legislation can (and might or might not) change those punishment discrepancies (for better or worse.
) It's not a frozen thing, and it is not strange at all.
Two. Actual bankers did not commit fraud.
I know what you are trying to say, BUT, the legal term fraud has a very specific meaning.
To assign blame, or to accuse, you need to use the appropriate terms of accusation for it to make sense.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429706</id>
	<title>Re:It wasn't him...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260796020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>he might be a ghost</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>he might be a ghost</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he might be a ghost</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30432186</id>
	<title>Re:What. The. Funk?</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1260811620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One, that you can get more jail time for moving 440,000 from one DB column to another than for trying to have someone killed.</p> </div><p>That's a fallacy that I think occurs a lot - "punishment to fit the crime" somehow becomes considered as "punishment relative to other punishments for unrelated crimes". And of course when looked at in that light, it's pretty unreasonable -- but that's a lot like comparing apples to soda cans.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One , that you can get more jail time for moving 440,000 from one DB column to another than for trying to have someone killed .
That 's a fallacy that I think occurs a lot - " punishment to fit the crime " somehow becomes considered as " punishment relative to other punishments for unrelated crimes " .
And of course when looked at in that light , it 's pretty unreasonable -- but that 's a lot like comparing apples to soda cans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One, that you can get more jail time for moving 440,000 from one DB column to another than for trying to have someone killed.
That's a fallacy that I think occurs a lot - "punishment to fit the crime" somehow becomes considered as "punishment relative to other punishments for unrelated crimes".
And of course when looked at in that light, it's pretty unreasonable -- but that's a lot like comparing apples to soda cans.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30434088</id>
	<title>MOD up!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260820980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I feel that <i>everyone</i> should read this post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel that everyone should read this post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel that everyone should read this post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430204</id>
	<title>What bankers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260801420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which bankers committed trillions of dollars of fraud? I've not heard of this. There have been some billion dollar schemes, Bernard Madoff would be a good example, however he didn't get paid off, he received a 150 year prison sentence for it.</p><p>Or are you generally ignorantly ranting about the recent stock market crash? Here's news for you: It wasn't fraud. Fraud has a legal definition, and what Madoff did was fraud. People going hog wild and speculating on stocks, bonds, commodities, whatever is NOT fraud. It's not smart to do, but it is not illegal.</p><p>Also let's please drop the "Oh those evil bankers!" crap. This mess has no one party responsible, there is blame at all levels. Government regulators are to blame because they failed to keep an eye on this and keep things from getting out of hand. Investment firms are to blame for investing too readily in something that was clearly growing well past any reasonable rate. Banks are to blame for making loans that were far too high a risk. And people are to blame, for walking eyes wide shut in to this situation, for taking loans they can't afford, for investing in a massive bubble.</p><p>Let's not pretend like "the little guy" is innocent here. None of this shit would have happened had normal people not been so eager to get in on this and so willfully oblivious to the risks. Nobody made people take loans they clearly couldn't afford, nobody forced them to refinance all their equity out of their houses to spend on consumables. They chose to do it, and the consequences have been far reaching indeed. However they can't now cry and blame it all on "the bankers." Yep, banks certainly have a big share of responsibility, but so do you, the individual that got yourself in that situation. You did NOT have to do that, you could have been smart about it but you weren't.</p><p>The problem is being responsible wasn't as much fun. It meant keeping a smaller, older house, and not getting all kinds of new toys. Ya well, that was the right answer.</p><p>So knock it off already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which bankers committed trillions of dollars of fraud ?
I 've not heard of this .
There have been some billion dollar schemes , Bernard Madoff would be a good example , however he did n't get paid off , he received a 150 year prison sentence for it.Or are you generally ignorantly ranting about the recent stock market crash ?
Here 's news for you : It was n't fraud .
Fraud has a legal definition , and what Madoff did was fraud .
People going hog wild and speculating on stocks , bonds , commodities , whatever is NOT fraud .
It 's not smart to do , but it is not illegal.Also let 's please drop the " Oh those evil bankers !
" crap .
This mess has no one party responsible , there is blame at all levels .
Government regulators are to blame because they failed to keep an eye on this and keep things from getting out of hand .
Investment firms are to blame for investing too readily in something that was clearly growing well past any reasonable rate .
Banks are to blame for making loans that were far too high a risk .
And people are to blame , for walking eyes wide shut in to this situation , for taking loans they ca n't afford , for investing in a massive bubble.Let 's not pretend like " the little guy " is innocent here .
None of this shit would have happened had normal people not been so eager to get in on this and so willfully oblivious to the risks .
Nobody made people take loans they clearly could n't afford , nobody forced them to refinance all their equity out of their houses to spend on consumables .
They chose to do it , and the consequences have been far reaching indeed .
However they ca n't now cry and blame it all on " the bankers .
" Yep , banks certainly have a big share of responsibility , but so do you , the individual that got yourself in that situation .
You did NOT have to do that , you could have been smart about it but you were n't.The problem is being responsible was n't as much fun .
It meant keeping a smaller , older house , and not getting all kinds of new toys .
Ya well , that was the right answer.So knock it off already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which bankers committed trillions of dollars of fraud?
I've not heard of this.
There have been some billion dollar schemes, Bernard Madoff would be a good example, however he didn't get paid off, he received a 150 year prison sentence for it.Or are you generally ignorantly ranting about the recent stock market crash?
Here's news for you: It wasn't fraud.
Fraud has a legal definition, and what Madoff did was fraud.
People going hog wild and speculating on stocks, bonds, commodities, whatever is NOT fraud.
It's not smart to do, but it is not illegal.Also let's please drop the "Oh those evil bankers!
" crap.
This mess has no one party responsible, there is blame at all levels.
Government regulators are to blame because they failed to keep an eye on this and keep things from getting out of hand.
Investment firms are to blame for investing too readily in something that was clearly growing well past any reasonable rate.
Banks are to blame for making loans that were far too high a risk.
And people are to blame, for walking eyes wide shut in to this situation, for taking loans they can't afford, for investing in a massive bubble.Let's not pretend like "the little guy" is innocent here.
None of this shit would have happened had normal people not been so eager to get in on this and so willfully oblivious to the risks.
Nobody made people take loans they clearly couldn't afford, nobody forced them to refinance all their equity out of their houses to spend on consumables.
They chose to do it, and the consequences have been far reaching indeed.
However they can't now cry and blame it all on "the bankers.
" Yep, banks certainly have a big share of responsibility, but so do you, the individual that got yourself in that situation.
You did NOT have to do that, you could have been smart about it but you weren't.The problem is being responsible wasn't as much fun.
It meant keeping a smaller, older house, and not getting all kinds of new toys.
Ya well, that was the right answer.So knock it off already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30434546</id>
	<title>Re:Put the onus on financial institutions</title>
	<author>steelfood</author>
	<datestamp>1260823380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or make authentication, and having authentic identities less important. Discredit the personal credit score, and half of the problem disappears. The thing is, now banks can't figure out whether you're trustworthy or not, whether you can pay back your loans or not, etc. Since you can file bankruptcy and your creditors are SOL afterwards, it's either this or not loan out money to people at all.</p><p>So then you'll have to remove the interest-loan system. And to do that, you'd have to go to cash-only, or back to precious metal-backed (or precious metal) currency. That would solve a fair number of issues, but it would reintroduce a whole other set of issues the current system was designed to solve.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or make authentication , and having authentic identities less important .
Discredit the personal credit score , and half of the problem disappears .
The thing is , now banks ca n't figure out whether you 're trustworthy or not , whether you can pay back your loans or not , etc .
Since you can file bankruptcy and your creditors are SOL afterwards , it 's either this or not loan out money to people at all.So then you 'll have to remove the interest-loan system .
And to do that , you 'd have to go to cash-only , or back to precious metal-backed ( or precious metal ) currency .
That would solve a fair number of issues , but it would reintroduce a whole other set of issues the current system was designed to solve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or make authentication, and having authentic identities less important.
Discredit the personal credit score, and half of the problem disappears.
The thing is, now banks can't figure out whether you're trustworthy or not, whether you can pay back your loans or not, etc.
Since you can file bankruptcy and your creditors are SOL afterwards, it's either this or not loan out money to people at all.So then you'll have to remove the interest-loan system.
And to do that, you'd have to go to cash-only, or back to precious metal-backed (or precious metal) currency.
That would solve a fair number of issues, but it would reintroduce a whole other set of issues the current system was designed to solve.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429374</id>
	<title>Re:What. The. Funk?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260790380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Valkovich will face a statutory maximum of 50 years in prison: 20 years for the murder-for-hire and 30 years for the bank fraud</p></div><p>On further investigation, a new fact has been discovered. When Valkovich was hiring the assassin, he was simultaneously copying his cds to a usb player. The sentence has been changed to death penalty of him, his entire family, and everybody in the same neighborhood with a name starting with a V, or a W.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Valkovich will face a statutory maximum of 50 years in prison : 20 years for the murder-for-hire and 30 years for the bank fraudOn further investigation , a new fact has been discovered .
When Valkovich was hiring the assassin , he was simultaneously copying his cds to a usb player .
The sentence has been changed to death penalty of him , his entire family , and everybody in the same neighborhood with a name starting with a V , or a W .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Valkovich will face a statutory maximum of 50 years in prison: 20 years for the murder-for-hire and 30 years for the bank fraudOn further investigation, a new fact has been discovered.
When Valkovich was hiring the assassin, he was simultaneously copying his cds to a usb player.
The sentence has been changed to death penalty of him, his entire family, and everybody in the same neighborhood with a name starting with a V, or a W.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30434354</id>
	<title>Re:i was called to jury duty once</title>
	<author>Fujisawa Sensei</author>
	<datestamp>1260822300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I actually wanted <b>on</b> the Jury Duty (big software corp was not exciting enough), but was disqualified with this question: "Is a police officer exactly as believable as a citizen?" (although it was worded slightly differently), and my answer was "slightly higher, perhaps 55\%", didn't even have time to give my rationale (they have training in situational awareness and in mentally recording a scene for later documentation).</p></div><p>I would have to say "I don't trust somebody just because they have a badge, a gun, or even a bible".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually wanted on the Jury Duty ( big software corp was not exciting enough ) , but was disqualified with this question : " Is a police officer exactly as believable as a citizen ?
" ( although it was worded slightly differently ) , and my answer was " slightly higher , perhaps 55 \ % " , did n't even have time to give my rationale ( they have training in situational awareness and in mentally recording a scene for later documentation ) .I would have to say " I do n't trust somebody just because they have a badge , a gun , or even a bible " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually wanted on the Jury Duty (big software corp was not exciting enough), but was disqualified with this question: "Is a police officer exactly as believable as a citizen?
" (although it was worded slightly differently), and my answer was "slightly higher, perhaps 55\%", didn't even have time to give my rationale (they have training in situational awareness and in mentally recording a scene for later documentation).I would have to say "I don't trust somebody just because they have a badge, a gun, or even a bible".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429750</id>
	<title>"Copyright theft" and *Identity theft"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260796560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those two terms have something in common -- both were trumped up by people with something to hide and would rather misdirect the public about what is going on.</p><p>There is no theft of copyright unless someone somehow convinces the registry office that he is the author and owner of the material.  It is "infringement" but that word doesn't sound bad or terrible enough to get people excited.</p><p>And there is no "Identity theft" either... well, there is when someone is actively out there claiming to be someone else while that someone else is thereafter doubted as to who he is.  Not sure that actually happens though.  What identity theft really is is fraud perpetrated against banks and other institutions who created a system by which a person is identified by numbers that are shared frequently and openly.  I hesitate to call them secret numbers since every time you participate in the system, you surrender nearly all of your personal identification numbers.  The system that has been created is EXTREMELY weak and easy to game.  It is also extremely easy and inexpensive for banks, financial institutions and shops to use in doing business.  And just like the "credit score" system created by the same people, it puts the burden on the individuals rather than on the people who created and use the systems to their advantage every day.</p><p>Seriously, what a great system?  They collect all of the advantages, and all disadvantages are shifted to individuals!</p><p>Banker says, "no, I was not harmed by this guy who fraudulently stole money from my bank...it was the poor schmuck whose bank account information was used!  And I'll tell you something else!  I'm holding that poor schmuck responsible for my incompetent system!"</p><p>Shop keeper says, "no, I was not harmed by this guy who fraudulently stole property from my store... it was the poor schmuck whose credit card numbers or credit information was used in making the purchase... and I'll tell you something else, I'm holding the poor schmuck responsible for paying the bill!  And if he doesn't, I'll file bad credit reports and in some states, file in court to have a judgement against him too!"</p><p>The weaknesses of the system are clear and obvious.  It is also clear and obvious who is being stolen from.  By changing the name from fraud to identity theft, they are attempting to make it less clear and obvious who the victim is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those two terms have something in common -- both were trumped up by people with something to hide and would rather misdirect the public about what is going on.There is no theft of copyright unless someone somehow convinces the registry office that he is the author and owner of the material .
It is " infringement " but that word does n't sound bad or terrible enough to get people excited.And there is no " Identity theft " either... well , there is when someone is actively out there claiming to be someone else while that someone else is thereafter doubted as to who he is .
Not sure that actually happens though .
What identity theft really is is fraud perpetrated against banks and other institutions who created a system by which a person is identified by numbers that are shared frequently and openly .
I hesitate to call them secret numbers since every time you participate in the system , you surrender nearly all of your personal identification numbers .
The system that has been created is EXTREMELY weak and easy to game .
It is also extremely easy and inexpensive for banks , financial institutions and shops to use in doing business .
And just like the " credit score " system created by the same people , it puts the burden on the individuals rather than on the people who created and use the systems to their advantage every day.Seriously , what a great system ?
They collect all of the advantages , and all disadvantages are shifted to individuals ! Banker says , " no , I was not harmed by this guy who fraudulently stole money from my bank...it was the poor schmuck whose bank account information was used !
And I 'll tell you something else !
I 'm holding that poor schmuck responsible for my incompetent system !
" Shop keeper says , " no , I was not harmed by this guy who fraudulently stole property from my store... it was the poor schmuck whose credit card numbers or credit information was used in making the purchase... and I 'll tell you something else , I 'm holding the poor schmuck responsible for paying the bill !
And if he does n't , I 'll file bad credit reports and in some states , file in court to have a judgement against him too !
" The weaknesses of the system are clear and obvious .
It is also clear and obvious who is being stolen from .
By changing the name from fraud to identity theft , they are attempting to make it less clear and obvious who the victim is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those two terms have something in common -- both were trumped up by people with something to hide and would rather misdirect the public about what is going on.There is no theft of copyright unless someone somehow convinces the registry office that he is the author and owner of the material.
It is "infringement" but that word doesn't sound bad or terrible enough to get people excited.And there is no "Identity theft" either... well, there is when someone is actively out there claiming to be someone else while that someone else is thereafter doubted as to who he is.
Not sure that actually happens though.
What identity theft really is is fraud perpetrated against banks and other institutions who created a system by which a person is identified by numbers that are shared frequently and openly.
I hesitate to call them secret numbers since every time you participate in the system, you surrender nearly all of your personal identification numbers.
The system that has been created is EXTREMELY weak and easy to game.
It is also extremely easy and inexpensive for banks, financial institutions and shops to use in doing business.
And just like the "credit score" system created by the same people, it puts the burden on the individuals rather than on the people who created and use the systems to their advantage every day.Seriously, what a great system?
They collect all of the advantages, and all disadvantages are shifted to individuals!Banker says, "no, I was not harmed by this guy who fraudulently stole money from my bank...it was the poor schmuck whose bank account information was used!
And I'll tell you something else!
I'm holding that poor schmuck responsible for my incompetent system!
"Shop keeper says, "no, I was not harmed by this guy who fraudulently stole property from my store... it was the poor schmuck whose credit card numbers or credit information was used in making the purchase... and I'll tell you something else, I'm holding the poor schmuck responsible for paying the bill!
And if he doesn't, I'll file bad credit reports and in some states, file in court to have a judgement against him too!
"The weaknesses of the system are clear and obvious.
It is also clear and obvious who is being stolen from.
By changing the name from fraud to identity theft, they are attempting to make it less clear and obvious who the victim is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429312</id>
	<title>Should have used twitter / craigslist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260789480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Trying to hire a hitman via classifieds is so last year</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trying to hire a hitman via classifieds is so last year</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trying to hire a hitman via classifieds is so last year</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30431804</id>
	<title>WTF seriously conspire to chop off a head...</title>
	<author>bodland</author>
	<datestamp>1260809760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>get 20 years...
<br>
attempt bank fraud get 30...
<br>
crazy world</htmltext>
<tokenext>get 20 years.. . attempt bank fraud get 30.. . crazy world</tokentext>
<sentencetext>get 20 years...

attempt bank fraud get 30...

crazy world</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429816</id>
	<title>Re:Put the onus on financial institutions</title>
	<author>JasterBobaMereel</author>
	<datestamp>1260797580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you prove you are you?</p><p>People have used completely made up identities for years and never been detected</p><p>It is not uncommon for people to have no formal identity, especially people who avoid being in the system</p><p>Many of the cases of identity theft are so frustrating for the victims because they have to continually and repeatedly prove they are who they say they are and have trouble doing so because the identity thief has more and better forms of ID then the real person does....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you prove you are you ? People have used completely made up identities for years and never been detectedIt is not uncommon for people to have no formal identity , especially people who avoid being in the systemMany of the cases of identity theft are so frustrating for the victims because they have to continually and repeatedly prove they are who they say they are and have trouble doing so because the identity thief has more and better forms of ID then the real person does... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you prove you are you?People have used completely made up identities for years and never been detectedIt is not uncommon for people to have no formal identity, especially people who avoid being in the systemMany of the cases of identity theft are so frustrating for the victims because they have to continually and repeatedly prove they are who they say they are and have trouble doing so because the identity thief has more and better forms of ID then the real person does....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430184</id>
	<title>Re:i was called to jury duty once</title>
	<author>Thing 1</author>
	<datestamp>1260801300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I actually wanted <b>on</b> the Jury Duty (big software corp was not exciting enough), but was disqualified with this question: "Is a police officer exactly as believable as a citizen?" (although it was worded slightly differently), and my answer was "slightly higher, perhaps 55\%", didn't even have time to give my rationale (they have training in situational awareness and in mentally recording a scene for later documentation).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually wanted on the Jury Duty ( big software corp was not exciting enough ) , but was disqualified with this question : " Is a police officer exactly as believable as a citizen ?
" ( although it was worded slightly differently ) , and my answer was " slightly higher , perhaps 55 \ % " , did n't even have time to give my rationale ( they have training in situational awareness and in mentally recording a scene for later documentation ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually wanted on the Jury Duty (big software corp was not exciting enough), but was disqualified with this question: "Is a police officer exactly as believable as a citizen?
" (although it was worded slightly differently), and my answer was "slightly higher, perhaps 55\%", didn't even have time to give my rationale (they have training in situational awareness and in mentally recording a scene for later documentation).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429400</id>
	<title>Re:What. The. Funk?</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1260790920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1- It kinda makes sense, though. I'm sure there's a known monetary value for saving one life, either though medical treatment or better safety. The value may vary in rich vs poor countries, but money = lives (and lives = money, sadly).</p><p>2- Indeed. What can we do except witch about it ? Both political parties are equally guilty...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1- It kinda makes sense , though .
I 'm sure there 's a known monetary value for saving one life , either though medical treatment or better safety .
The value may vary in rich vs poor countries , but money = lives ( and lives = money , sadly ) .2- Indeed .
What can we do except witch about it ?
Both political parties are equally guilty.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1- It kinda makes sense, though.
I'm sure there's a known monetary value for saving one life, either though medical treatment or better safety.
The value may vary in rich vs poor countries, but money = lives (and lives = money, sadly).2- Indeed.
What can we do except witch about it ?
Both political parties are equally guilty...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429896</id>
	<title>Lock your credit.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260798480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had my credit locked.  I was pleasantly surprised when I signed up to Dish Network, and they denied me because they couldn't even check my credit score.  So at least I know it's working.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had my credit locked .
I was pleasantly surprised when I signed up to Dish Network , and they denied me because they could n't even check my credit score .
So at least I know it 's working .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had my credit locked.
I was pleasantly surprised when I signed up to Dish Network, and they denied me because they couldn't even check my credit score.
So at least I know it's working.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430138</id>
	<title>Re:Put the onus on financial institutions</title>
	<author>Thing 1</author>
	<datestamp>1260800940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, this is something that strikes me as weird: a (former) friend borrowed money, even signed a note for it.  However, the note wasn't notarized, and my attorney said that I'm SOL.  On the other hand, none of the credit card agreements that I've signed were notarized, either, so why do I not get the same legal protections that a bank gets?</p><p>(Note the "former" -- don't lend friends money.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , this is something that strikes me as weird : a ( former ) friend borrowed money , even signed a note for it .
However , the note was n't notarized , and my attorney said that I 'm SOL .
On the other hand , none of the credit card agreements that I 've signed were notarized , either , so why do I not get the same legal protections that a bank gets ?
( Note the " former " -- do n't lend friends money .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, this is something that strikes me as weird: a (former) friend borrowed money, even signed a note for it.
However, the note wasn't notarized, and my attorney said that I'm SOL.
On the other hand, none of the credit card agreements that I've signed were notarized, either, so why do I not get the same legal protections that a bank gets?
(Note the "former" -- don't lend friends money.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30431748</id>
	<title>Re:What bankers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260809520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see you've been reading from the neo-conservative talking points memo again.</p><p>People who received loans they could not afford are only responsible for their own financially-crushing mortgage on their now-worth-less homes, or for the fact that they have no home at all because they were forced to default on their mortgage.  <b>Their responsibility ends there.</b></p><p>You can't blame the mortgage recipients for the bigger picture.  That's like blaming the workers on the sales floor or cashiers for the bankruptcy of a store. The fact that there are <b>thousands</b> of people in this situation lies with banks, investors, and government.  Each had a responsibility, failed miserably in each of their duties, and turned what should have been a minor problem with a handful of people that could be readily addressed into a major problem that helped tank the economy.</p><p>Bonus points: none of them care to fix the system proper, just well enough to shut people up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see you 've been reading from the neo-conservative talking points memo again.People who received loans they could not afford are only responsible for their own financially-crushing mortgage on their now-worth-less homes , or for the fact that they have no home at all because they were forced to default on their mortgage .
Their responsibility ends there.You ca n't blame the mortgage recipients for the bigger picture .
That 's like blaming the workers on the sales floor or cashiers for the bankruptcy of a store .
The fact that there are thousands of people in this situation lies with banks , investors , and government .
Each had a responsibility , failed miserably in each of their duties , and turned what should have been a minor problem with a handful of people that could be readily addressed into a major problem that helped tank the economy.Bonus points : none of them care to fix the system proper , just well enough to shut people up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see you've been reading from the neo-conservative talking points memo again.People who received loans they could not afford are only responsible for their own financially-crushing mortgage on their now-worth-less homes, or for the fact that they have no home at all because they were forced to default on their mortgage.
Their responsibility ends there.You can't blame the mortgage recipients for the bigger picture.
That's like blaming the workers on the sales floor or cashiers for the bankruptcy of a store.
The fact that there are thousands of people in this situation lies with banks, investors, and government.
Each had a responsibility, failed miserably in each of their duties, and turned what should have been a minor problem with a handful of people that could be readily addressed into a major problem that helped tank the economy.Bonus points: none of them care to fix the system proper, just well enough to shut people up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429518</id>
	<title>Re:What. The. Funk?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260792420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So why the hell would any of you bastards want to be anything but a banker making millions?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So why the hell would any of you bastards want to be anything but a banker making millions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why the hell would any of you bastards want to be anything but a banker making millions?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308</id>
	<title>What. The. Funk?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260789420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Valkovich will face a statutory maximum of 50 years in prison: 20 years for the murder-for-hire and 30 years for the bank fraud.</p></div></blockquote><p>Two things amaze me:

</p><p>One, that you can get more jail time for moving 440,000 from one DB column to another than for trying to have someone killed.

</p><p>Two, that actual bankers that committed fraud to the tune of <em>trillions</em> were punished by (at most) being handsomely paid off and sentenced to go golfing for the rest of their lives.

</p><p>What a strange "justice" system we've created for ourselves.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Valkovich will face a statutory maximum of 50 years in prison : 20 years for the murder-for-hire and 30 years for the bank fraud.Two things amaze me : One , that you can get more jail time for moving 440,000 from one DB column to another than for trying to have someone killed .
Two , that actual bankers that committed fraud to the tune of trillions were punished by ( at most ) being handsomely paid off and sentenced to go golfing for the rest of their lives .
What a strange " justice " system we 've created for ourselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Valkovich will face a statutory maximum of 50 years in prison: 20 years for the murder-for-hire and 30 years for the bank fraud.Two things amaze me:

One, that you can get more jail time for moving 440,000 from one DB column to another than for trying to have someone killed.
Two, that actual bankers that committed fraud to the tune of trillions were punished by (at most) being handsomely paid off and sentenced to go golfing for the rest of their lives.
What a strange "justice" system we've created for ourselves.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30432876</id>
	<title>Re:What. The. Funk?</title>
	<author>operagost</author>
	<datestamp>1260814680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <tt>Two, that actual bankers that committed fraud to the tune of trillions were punished by (at most) being handsomely paid off and sentenced to go golfing for the rest of their lives.</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>No, actually those guys are still working on the universal health care bill.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Two , that actual bankers that committed fraud to the tune of trillions were punished by ( at most ) being handsomely paid off and sentenced to go golfing for the rest of their lives .
No , actually those guys are still working on the universal health care bill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Two, that actual bankers that committed fraud to the tune of trillions were punished by (at most) being handsomely paid off and sentenced to go golfing for the rest of their lives.
No, actually those guys are still working on the universal health care bill.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30432450</id>
	<title>Re:Not idle</title>
	<author>Farmer Tim</author>
	<datestamp>1260812940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>How is this 'idle'? He tried to f.....g kill people!</i></p><p>It's "idle" because he failed, and he wasn't even up against a British secret agent. My loyal henchmen are having a good laugh about this right now (their union insisted I let them read Slashdot on their breaks from building my death ray).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this 'idle ' ?
He tried to f.....g kill people ! It 's " idle " because he failed , and he was n't even up against a British secret agent .
My loyal henchmen are having a good laugh about this right now ( their union insisted I let them read Slashdot on their breaks from building my death ray ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this 'idle'?
He tried to f.....g kill people!It's "idle" because he failed, and he wasn't even up against a British secret agent.
My loyal henchmen are having a good laugh about this right now (their union insisted I let them read Slashdot on their breaks from building my death ray).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429474</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30431848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30432300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30435748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30434058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30432078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30432450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30434546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30432876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30434604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30431320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30432270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30434088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30431748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30432186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30432640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30431254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30440484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30431574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30432846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30438274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30434354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30431400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30434758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30432912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30431316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30433208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30431254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30431330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_0059229_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_0059229.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_0059229.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30431330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30431400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30432270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_0059229.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30434546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429978
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30432078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430138
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30435748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429816
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30431574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429996
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_0059229.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30431320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430798
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30434088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430060
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30434604
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30440484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430184
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30432912
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30434758
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30434354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_0059229.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_0059229.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430576
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_0059229.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_0059229.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30432450
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_0059229.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429380
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_0059229.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30432876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30431316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30432186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429354
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30430204
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30431254
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30432640
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30433208
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30431848
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30431748
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30438274
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30434058
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30432846
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30432300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_0059229.30429788
</commentlist>
</conversation>
