<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_14_2224208</id>
	<title>Australia Could Finally Get R18+ Games</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1260809520000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/" rel="nofollow">angry tapir</a> writes <i>"Australia may <a href="http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/article/329754/r18\_classification\_video\_games\_finally\_coming\_australia">finally get an adults only, R18+ classification</a> for computer games, with the federal government releasing a discussion paper summarizing the key arguments for and against an R18+ classification. Submissions are currently being sought from the community on whether the Australian National Classification Scheme should include an R18+ category for computer and video games. In the past the board responsible for classifying games and movies has banned some titles outright because of the lack of an adults only classification &mdash; <a href="http://games.slashdot.org/story/09/12/05/0535251/New-Aliens-Vs-Predator-Game-Doesnt-Make-It-Past-AU-Ratings-Board"> <em>Aliens Vs. Predator</em></a> is just <a href="http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/slideshow/263646/banned-downunder-five-games-that-didnt-make-it-past-the-censors/">the most recent in a long line</a>. The <a href="http://www.ag.gov.au/gamesclassification">Attorney-General's report</a> on the issue is available online."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>angry tapir writes " Australia may finally get an adults only , R18 + classification for computer games , with the federal government releasing a discussion paper summarizing the key arguments for and against an R18 + classification .
Submissions are currently being sought from the community on whether the Australian National Classification Scheme should include an R18 + category for computer and video games .
In the past the board responsible for classifying games and movies has banned some titles outright because of the lack of an adults only classification    Aliens Vs. Predator is just the most recent in a long line .
The Attorney-General 's report on the issue is available online .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>angry tapir writes "Australia may finally get an adults only, R18+ classification for computer games, with the federal government releasing a discussion paper summarizing the key arguments for and against an R18+ classification.
Submissions are currently being sought from the community on whether the Australian National Classification Scheme should include an R18+ category for computer and video games.
In the past the board responsible for classifying games and movies has banned some titles outright because of the lack of an adults only classification —  Aliens Vs. Predator is just the most recent in a long line.
The Attorney-General's report on the issue is available online.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30441132</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think Michael Atkinson will stand for t</title>
	<author>atomicstrawberry</author>
	<datestamp>1260819960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While he won't admit it, he's the main reason why this study - which was due to be released quite a while ago - has taken until now to reach this stage.</p><p>I expect he'll just ignore the public and continue to veto any changes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While he wo n't admit it , he 's the main reason why this study - which was due to be released quite a while ago - has taken until now to reach this stage.I expect he 'll just ignore the public and continue to veto any changes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While he won't admit it, he's the main reason why this study - which was due to be released quite a while ago - has taken until now to reach this stage.I expect he'll just ignore the public and continue to veto any changes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440692</id>
	<title>One of the more amusing arguments against...</title>
	<author>Lord\_of\_the\_nerf</author>
	<datestamp>1260815100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the <a href="http://www.ag.gov.au/gamesclassification" title="ag.gov.au" rel="nofollow">discussion paper</a> [ag.gov.au]: <i>"An R 18+ for computer games would exacerbate problems associated with access to high level material in Indigenous communities and by other non-English speaking people."</i> </p><p>
Apparently classification is racially insensitive, but only for computer games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the discussion paper [ ag.gov.au ] : " An R 18 + for computer games would exacerbate problems associated with access to high level material in Indigenous communities and by other non-English speaking people .
" Apparently classification is racially insensitive , but only for computer games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the discussion paper [ag.gov.au]: "An R 18+ for computer games would exacerbate problems associated with access to high level material in Indigenous communities and by other non-English speaking people.
" 
Apparently classification is racially insensitive, but only for computer games.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440620</id>
	<title>This is encouraging</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260814500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I'm in two minds about this:</p><p>1. No amount of public support and public consultation is going to change Michael Atkinson's mind over this issue. Even very strong public support (91\% of Australian adults support an R18+ rating for games, according to polling). Since Mr. Atkinson holds the power of veto for changing this law, even if the Federal Government STRONGLY URGES the introduction of an R18+ rating, he doesn't actually HAVE to give in to their demands (although there may be political consequences if he doesn't).</p><p>On the other hand...</p><p>2. It is great that this issue is finally being taken seriously by the general public, and is being given headlines in the major newspapers around the country today. This lends legitimacy to what gamers have been saying for ages - that game classification IS a serious issue and gamers are not kids. It's been pushed from a niche topic, to the mainstream, and that is how laws will get changed. So I'm quite encouraged by this. Michael Atkinson is unlikely to continue vetoing a change to the law if 90\% of the public are behind it AND the Federal Government strongly recommends a R18+ rating in an official report<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... like any other poltician, there is a point at which Mr. Atkinson will just have to bite the bullet and tow the party line. Woot<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Mind you, the existing 'ban' (more accurately a lack of a classification preventing the sale of certain games<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you can still purchase them online and legally own and play them), isn't really a huge deal anyway. Ebay/overseas retailers are your friend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I 'm in two minds about this : 1 .
No amount of public support and public consultation is going to change Michael Atkinson 's mind over this issue .
Even very strong public support ( 91 \ % of Australian adults support an R18 + rating for games , according to polling ) .
Since Mr. Atkinson holds the power of veto for changing this law , even if the Federal Government STRONGLY URGES the introduction of an R18 + rating , he does n't actually HAVE to give in to their demands ( although there may be political consequences if he does n't ) .On the other hand...2 .
It is great that this issue is finally being taken seriously by the general public , and is being given headlines in the major newspapers around the country today .
This lends legitimacy to what gamers have been saying for ages - that game classification IS a serious issue and gamers are not kids .
It 's been pushed from a niche topic , to the mainstream , and that is how laws will get changed .
So I 'm quite encouraged by this .
Michael Atkinson is unlikely to continue vetoing a change to the law if 90 \ % of the public are behind it AND the Federal Government strongly recommends a R18 + rating in an official report ... like any other poltician , there is a point at which Mr. Atkinson will just have to bite the bullet and tow the party line .
Woot : ) Mind you , the existing 'ban ' ( more accurately a lack of a classification preventing the sale of certain games ... you can still purchase them online and legally own and play them ) , is n't really a huge deal anyway .
Ebay/overseas retailers are your friend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I'm in two minds about this:1.
No amount of public support and public consultation is going to change Michael Atkinson's mind over this issue.
Even very strong public support (91\% of Australian adults support an R18+ rating for games, according to polling).
Since Mr. Atkinson holds the power of veto for changing this law, even if the Federal Government STRONGLY URGES the introduction of an R18+ rating, he doesn't actually HAVE to give in to their demands (although there may be political consequences if he doesn't).On the other hand...2.
It is great that this issue is finally being taken seriously by the general public, and is being given headlines in the major newspapers around the country today.
This lends legitimacy to what gamers have been saying for ages - that game classification IS a serious issue and gamers are not kids.
It's been pushed from a niche topic, to the mainstream, and that is how laws will get changed.
So I'm quite encouraged by this.
Michael Atkinson is unlikely to continue vetoing a change to the law if 90\% of the public are behind it AND the Federal Government strongly recommends a R18+ rating in an official report ... like any other poltician, there is a point at which Mr. Atkinson will just have to bite the bullet and tow the party line.
Woot :)Mind you, the existing 'ban' (more accurately a lack of a classification preventing the sale of certain games ... you can still purchase them online and legally own and play them), isn't really a huge deal anyway.
Ebay/overseas retailers are your friend.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30442668</id>
	<title>Re:Denying sexual maturity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260883200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When does this shit stop?</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Most human beings reach sexual maturity - that is, the age where their hormones are in full swing - somewhere between the ages of 8 and 14 as measured by earth's orbit around the sun.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; At that point they are capable of producing offspring. At that point, their bodies have entered into the physical stages where producing offspring is a *physical imperative* - ie, the hormones that produce the desire to mate are in full swing.</p></div><p>Sadly their brains are not similarly mature.  As evidenced by the record rates of STIs among teenagers despite starting sex education earlier than any previous generation, and more widespread availability of condoms than was true in any previous generation.  And the similar record high rates of teenage pregnancies, and (yes) terminations.   Common thought amongst adults is that "On second thoughts, being told to wait until your brain development catches up with your genitalia might be a good idea after all".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When does this shit stop ?
        Most human beings reach sexual maturity - that is , the age where their hormones are in full swing - somewhere between the ages of 8 and 14 as measured by earth 's orbit around the sun .
    At that point they are capable of producing offspring .
At that point , their bodies have entered into the physical stages where producing offspring is a * physical imperative * - ie , the hormones that produce the desire to mate are in full swing.Sadly their brains are not similarly mature .
As evidenced by the record rates of STIs among teenagers despite starting sex education earlier than any previous generation , and more widespread availability of condoms than was true in any previous generation .
And the similar record high rates of teenage pregnancies , and ( yes ) terminations .
Common thought amongst adults is that " On second thoughts , being told to wait until your brain development catches up with your genitalia might be a good idea after all " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When does this shit stop?
        Most human beings reach sexual maturity - that is, the age where their hormones are in full swing - somewhere between the ages of 8 and 14 as measured by earth's orbit around the sun.
    At that point they are capable of producing offspring.
At that point, their bodies have entered into the physical stages where producing offspring is a *physical imperative* - ie, the hormones that produce the desire to mate are in full swing.Sadly their brains are not similarly mature.
As evidenced by the record rates of STIs among teenagers despite starting sex education earlier than any previous generation, and more widespread availability of condoms than was true in any previous generation.
And the similar record high rates of teenage pregnancies, and (yes) terminations.
Common thought amongst adults is that "On second thoughts, being told to wait until your brain development catches up with your genitalia might be a good idea after all".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30442032</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think Michael Atkinson will stand for t</title>
	<author>m0n0RAIL</author>
	<datestamp>1260875100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.gamers4croydon.org/" title="gamers4croydon.org" rel="nofollow">Gamers 4 Croydon</a> [gamers4croydon.org] are running a candidate against Michael Atkinson in the next election for the Croydon seat. Vote for them if you really want to see an R18+ rating in Australia.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gamers 4 Croydon [ gamers4croydon.org ] are running a candidate against Michael Atkinson in the next election for the Croydon seat .
Vote for them if you really want to see an R18 + rating in Australia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gamers 4 Croydon [gamers4croydon.org] are running a candidate against Michael Atkinson in the next election for the Croydon seat.
Vote for them if you really want to see an R18+ rating in Australia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440732</id>
	<title>Re:Banning doesn't do what they think it does</title>
	<author>Lord\_of\_the\_nerf</author>
	<datestamp>1260815400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> One of the favoured arguments against classification seems to be that putting it out of reach of kids makes them want it more.</p><p>By the same token, doesn't refusing to classify them make them SUPER-EXTREME out of reach, and therefore even more desirable? </p><p>
Hell, if I was EA, I'd put snuff pr0n on the top shelf in a sealed room on Mars and watch my sales skyrocket.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the favoured arguments against classification seems to be that putting it out of reach of kids makes them want it more.By the same token , does n't refusing to classify them make them SUPER-EXTREME out of reach , and therefore even more desirable ?
Hell , if I was EA , I 'd put snuff pr0n on the top shelf in a sealed room on Mars and watch my sales skyrocket .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> One of the favoured arguments against classification seems to be that putting it out of reach of kids makes them want it more.By the same token, doesn't refusing to classify them make them SUPER-EXTREME out of reach, and therefore even more desirable?
Hell, if I was EA, I'd put snuff pr0n on the top shelf in a sealed room on Mars and watch my sales skyrocket.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30452518</id>
	<title>Re:Games are not just for kids anymore!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260884520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It almost makes me ashamed to live in the same state as him.</p></div><p>Then <a href="http://www.gamers4croydon.org/" title="gamers4croydon.org" rel="nofollow">do something about it!</a> [gamers4croydon.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It almost makes me ashamed to live in the same state as him.Then do something about it !
[ gamers4croydon.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It almost makes me ashamed to live in the same state as him.Then do something about it!
[gamers4croydon.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30453034</id>
	<title>Re:One of the more amusing arguments against...</title>
	<author>deek</author>
	<datestamp>1260888480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read the discussion paper.</p><p>Apparently, a study found that many indigenous families in the Northern Territory left high level media easily accessible to children.  Most often because the parents didn't understand the classification level, and the responsibilities entailed by law.  This argument is saying that having R18+ games would aggravate problems due to this.</p><p>I don't think that argument works when concerning games though.  You need a decent level of education to be able to use computer games, and even console games.  Certainly high enough to ensure that families with games will understand the classification system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read the discussion paper.Apparently , a study found that many indigenous families in the Northern Territory left high level media easily accessible to children .
Most often because the parents did n't understand the classification level , and the responsibilities entailed by law .
This argument is saying that having R18 + games would aggravate problems due to this.I do n't think that argument works when concerning games though .
You need a decent level of education to be able to use computer games , and even console games .
Certainly high enough to ensure that families with games will understand the classification system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read the discussion paper.Apparently, a study found that many indigenous families in the Northern Territory left high level media easily accessible to children.
Most often because the parents didn't understand the classification level, and the responsibilities entailed by law.
This argument is saying that having R18+ games would aggravate problems due to this.I don't think that argument works when concerning games though.
You need a decent level of education to be able to use computer games, and even console games.
Certainly high enough to ensure that families with games will understand the classification system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30442924</id>
	<title>I understand what you are saying but...</title>
	<author>hellfire</author>
	<datestamp>1260885900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... you're addressing the wrong thing.  Human beings are able to procreate early, but their actually mental maturity isn't reached until sometime between the ages of 18 and 21, when the <i>brain</i> finally matures.  The brain takes longest to develop.  The concept is that humans need to be guided responsibly through most of this process.  Left to their own devices, we basically end up with lord of the flies or beavis and butthead or something even worse.</p><p>This is not a pro "save the children, shield them from nudity and 'evil' things" comment, but rather simply a devil's advocate comment.  I think the problem is that a lot of these kids were guided wrong, pushed to believe that a nude body is a dirty and evil thing and that looking at it will make you go to hell.  To me, that's just irresponsible guidance but once you ingrain that in a human brain, it most likely stays that way for the rest of it's life.  It's the mental maturity that's key here and any situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... you 're addressing the wrong thing .
Human beings are able to procreate early , but their actually mental maturity is n't reached until sometime between the ages of 18 and 21 , when the brain finally matures .
The brain takes longest to develop .
The concept is that humans need to be guided responsibly through most of this process .
Left to their own devices , we basically end up with lord of the flies or beavis and butthead or something even worse.This is not a pro " save the children , shield them from nudity and 'evil ' things " comment , but rather simply a devil 's advocate comment .
I think the problem is that a lot of these kids were guided wrong , pushed to believe that a nude body is a dirty and evil thing and that looking at it will make you go to hell .
To me , that 's just irresponsible guidance but once you ingrain that in a human brain , it most likely stays that way for the rest of it 's life .
It 's the mental maturity that 's key here and any situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... you're addressing the wrong thing.
Human beings are able to procreate early, but their actually mental maturity isn't reached until sometime between the ages of 18 and 21, when the brain finally matures.
The brain takes longest to develop.
The concept is that humans need to be guided responsibly through most of this process.
Left to their own devices, we basically end up with lord of the flies or beavis and butthead or something even worse.This is not a pro "save the children, shield them from nudity and 'evil' things" comment, but rather simply a devil's advocate comment.
I think the problem is that a lot of these kids were guided wrong, pushed to believe that a nude body is a dirty and evil thing and that looking at it will make you go to hell.
To me, that's just irresponsible guidance but once you ingrain that in a human brain, it most likely stays that way for the rest of it's life.
It's the mental maturity that's key here and any situation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440798</id>
	<title>Don't get our hopes up.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260816000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That fuckwit Michael Atkinson has made it very clear that as long as he holds office he will not allow such a sane thing to come to pass.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That fuckwit Michael Atkinson has made it very clear that as long as he holds office he will not allow such a sane thing to come to pass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That fuckwit Michael Atkinson has made it very clear that as long as he holds office he will not allow such a sane thing to come to pass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30441666</id>
	<title>Re:Banning doesn't do what they think it does</title>
	<author>kestasjk</author>
	<datestamp>1260870600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks for the link</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for the link</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for the link</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440760</id>
	<title>Re:This is encouraging</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1260815580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When all the other state gov's and the Fedral gov are aligned against him and they open a public enquiry, it's a forgone conclusion he will be overruled in one way or another.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When all the other state gov 's and the Fedral gov are aligned against him and they open a public enquiry , it 's a forgone conclusion he will be overruled in one way or another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When all the other state gov's and the Fedral gov are aligned against him and they open a public enquiry, it's a forgone conclusion he will be overruled in one way or another.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30443866</id>
	<title>Re:Banning doesn't do what they think it does</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260891420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The number of 16 year-olds who can get a PS3 to play an illegally downloaded game, while large</i></p><p>No it isn't. The number is zero. There is no piracy on the PS3. The 360 and the Wii, yes, a huge piracy scene is a large influence on people buying the consoles. But not the PS3. That devices is still very well locked away to game copies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The number of 16 year-olds who can get a PS3 to play an illegally downloaded game , while largeNo it is n't .
The number is zero .
There is no piracy on the PS3 .
The 360 and the Wii , yes , a huge piracy scene is a large influence on people buying the consoles .
But not the PS3 .
That devices is still very well locked away to game copies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The number of 16 year-olds who can get a PS3 to play an illegally downloaded game, while largeNo it isn't.
The number is zero.
There is no piracy on the PS3.
The 360 and the Wii, yes, a huge piracy scene is a large influence on people buying the consoles.
But not the PS3.
That devices is still very well locked away to game copies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440952</id>
	<title>Re:Games are not just for kids anymore!</title>
	<author>Capsaicin</author>
	<datestamp>1260817620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>We have had extreme violence in movies for years, there is nothing significantly different in games other than increased cathartic release.</i> </p><p>Can movies not cause "cathartic release?"</p><p>I would anticipate that the counter argument would run something like, "the significant difference is that with movies viewers are passive audience members, whereas with games, players are entrained as actors."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have had extreme violence in movies for years , there is nothing significantly different in games other than increased cathartic release .
Can movies not cause " cathartic release ?
" I would anticipate that the counter argument would run something like , " the significant difference is that with movies viewers are passive audience members , whereas with games , players are entrained as actors .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext> We have had extreme violence in movies for years, there is nothing significantly different in games other than increased cathartic release.
Can movies not cause "cathartic release?
"I would anticipate that the counter argument would run something like, "the significant difference is that with movies viewers are passive audience members, whereas with games, players are entrained as actors.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30442766</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy...</title>
	<author>Jeeeb</author>
	<datestamp>1260884400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i> <br> <br>

It would be probably a lot less democratic to give the government the power to arbitrarily change the censorship laws without any checks and balances.</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be probably a lot less democratic to give the government the power to arbitrarily change the censorship laws without any checks and balances .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  

It would be probably a lot less democratic to give the government the power to arbitrarily change the censorship laws without any checks and balances.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440836</id>
	<title>Re:Banning doesn't do what they think it does</title>
	<author>srjh</author>
	<datestamp>1260816300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately we can have all the consultation we want - as long as Michael Atkinson (think Jack Thompson with a political office) is Attorney-General of South Australia he will veto it.</p><p>As it stands, the decision needs to be unanimous amongst all the states - support for an R18+ rating seems to hover around 90\% in most polls, but without the support of this one idiot, nothing is ever going to change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately we can have all the consultation we want - as long as Michael Atkinson ( think Jack Thompson with a political office ) is Attorney-General of South Australia he will veto it.As it stands , the decision needs to be unanimous amongst all the states - support for an R18 + rating seems to hover around 90 \ % in most polls , but without the support of this one idiot , nothing is ever going to change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately we can have all the consultation we want - as long as Michael Atkinson (think Jack Thompson with a political office) is Attorney-General of South Australia he will veto it.As it stands, the decision needs to be unanimous amongst all the states - support for an R18+ rating seems to hover around 90\% in most polls, but without the support of this one idiot, nothing is ever going to change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30445460</id>
	<title>Re:Denying sexual maturity</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1260897960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I get what you are saying.  But when you really look at how our society is set up, we can't provide for ourselves and a child at that age.  It isn't until after high school that we are truly able to enter the work force.  I don't know many 8-14 year olds that could handle having a child without the help from their parents.<br> <br>As far as nudity goes, in the U.S., our puritanical roots make sure that we are a bit prude in that sense.  It is silly by all rational thought, but no one said religions was ever rational.<br> <br>Are we becoming more irrational?  I don't think so.  I think more and more people don't believe that magic started the world and that magic beings visited us doing magic and then just magically left until some day they will come back and do magic to destroy us all.  But it is pretty clear that many people would rather be told something they want to hear than confront reality and facts (e.g. politics).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I get what you are saying .
But when you really look at how our society is set up , we ca n't provide for ourselves and a child at that age .
It is n't until after high school that we are truly able to enter the work force .
I do n't know many 8-14 year olds that could handle having a child without the help from their parents .
As far as nudity goes , in the U.S. , our puritanical roots make sure that we are a bit prude in that sense .
It is silly by all rational thought , but no one said religions was ever rational .
Are we becoming more irrational ?
I do n't think so .
I think more and more people do n't believe that magic started the world and that magic beings visited us doing magic and then just magically left until some day they will come back and do magic to destroy us all .
But it is pretty clear that many people would rather be told something they want to hear than confront reality and facts ( e.g .
politics ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get what you are saying.
But when you really look at how our society is set up, we can't provide for ourselves and a child at that age.
It isn't until after high school that we are truly able to enter the work force.
I don't know many 8-14 year olds that could handle having a child without the help from their parents.
As far as nudity goes, in the U.S., our puritanical roots make sure that we are a bit prude in that sense.
It is silly by all rational thought, but no one said religions was ever rational.
Are we becoming more irrational?
I don't think so.
I think more and more people don't believe that magic started the world and that magic beings visited us doing magic and then just magically left until some day they will come back and do magic to destroy us all.
But it is pretty clear that many people would rather be told something they want to hear than confront reality and facts (e.g.
politics).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30447862</id>
	<title>Re:Banning doesn't do what they think it does</title>
	<author>HTH NE1</author>
	<datestamp>1260906120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They don't have the R18+ rating yet. Instead the games are refused classification, and those games that are refused classification (RC) are banned.</p><p>But so what if they introduce an R18+ rating? How is that going to differ from being banned?</p><p>Compare the US's ESRB's "Ao" rating. Not only will vendors not carry it, all the current console makers say they won't allow them to be played on their systems. And so the publishers edit the games to get an M rating.</p><p>Add a R18+ rating to Australia? There will be no net effect compared to being RC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't have the R18 + rating yet .
Instead the games are refused classification , and those games that are refused classification ( RC ) are banned.But so what if they introduce an R18 + rating ?
How is that going to differ from being banned ? Compare the US 's ESRB 's " Ao " rating .
Not only will vendors not carry it , all the current console makers say they wo n't allow them to be played on their systems .
And so the publishers edit the games to get an M rating.Add a R18 + rating to Australia ?
There will be no net effect compared to being RC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't have the R18+ rating yet.
Instead the games are refused classification, and those games that are refused classification (RC) are banned.But so what if they introduce an R18+ rating?
How is that going to differ from being banned?Compare the US's ESRB's "Ao" rating.
Not only will vendors not carry it, all the current console makers say they won't allow them to be played on their systems.
And so the publishers edit the games to get an M rating.Add a R18+ rating to Australia?
There will be no net effect compared to being RC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30441636</id>
	<title>Yaaaaaaaay!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260870300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>About time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>About time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30441396</id>
	<title>Did they really think...</title>
	<author>icsx</author>
	<datestamp>1260910500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did they really think that every game developer would do censored version for their country if they ban the original? Now that someone said no, they are amazed and already are turning the table over the past decisions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did they really think that every game developer would do censored version for their country if they ban the original ?
Now that someone said no , they are amazed and already are turning the table over the past decisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did they really think that every game developer would do censored version for their country if they ban the original?
Now that someone said no, they are amazed and already are turning the table over the past decisions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30442238</id>
	<title>Re:But they've also announced internet filtering</title>
	<author>deniable</author>
	<datestamp>1260877860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The DBCDE website is unavailable due to demand for the report, which we have mirrored <a href="http://whirlpool.net.au/img/article/1852/isp\_filtering\_live\_pilot\_report\_low\_res.pdf" title="whirlpool.net.au">here</a> [whirlpool.net.au].</p></div><p>We've slashdotted a federal department. From what I've seen of their emails, they need some people who know about computers and the Internet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The DBCDE website is unavailable due to demand for the report , which we have mirrored here [ whirlpool.net.au ] .We 've slashdotted a federal department .
From what I 've seen of their emails , they need some people who know about computers and the Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The DBCDE website is unavailable due to demand for the report, which we have mirrored here [whirlpool.net.au].We've slashdotted a federal department.
From what I've seen of their emails, they need some people who know about computers and the Internet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30454100</id>
	<title>Re:Banning doesn't do what they think it does</title>
	<author>Puff\_Of\_Hot\_Air</author>
	<datestamp>1260899820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, online polls I have seen that were not "gamer/tech" related websites, have tended to show a fairly even split on support for R18+ clasification. Personally I found this surprising, but it may suggest a lack of understanding in the community about the issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , online polls I have seen that were not " gamer/tech " related websites , have tended to show a fairly even split on support for R18 + clasification .
Personally I found this surprising , but it may suggest a lack of understanding in the community about the issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, online polls I have seen that were not "gamer/tech" related websites, have tended to show a fairly even split on support for R18+ clasification.
Personally I found this surprising, but it may suggest a lack of understanding in the community about the issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440614</id>
	<title>One argument that doesn't quite sit well with me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260814440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apparently the authors of paper believe that
"Given the very low numbers of games that are affected by the absence of the classification
category, the introduction of an R 18+ category is only an argument of principle."

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_banned\_video\_games#Australia" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_banned\_video\_games#Australia</a> [wikipedia.org]

I'm think that its a little more than an argument of principle

Also they are potentially ignoring the large number of games that have been forced to reevaluate their content ex: Left for Dead 2</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently the authors of paper believe that " Given the very low numbers of games that are affected by the absence of the classification category , the introduction of an R 18 + category is only an argument of principle .
" http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List \ _of \ _banned \ _video \ _games # Australia [ wikipedia.org ] I 'm think that its a little more than an argument of principle Also they are potentially ignoring the large number of games that have been forced to reevaluate their content ex : Left for Dead 2</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently the authors of paper believe that
"Given the very low numbers of games that are affected by the absence of the classification
category, the introduction of an R 18+ category is only an argument of principle.
"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_banned\_video\_games#Australia [wikipedia.org]

I'm think that its a little more than an argument of principle

Also they are potentially ignoring the large number of games that have been forced to reevaluate their content ex: Left for Dead 2</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30441304</id>
	<title>Re:Denying sexual maturity</title>
	<author>chip\_s\_ahoy</author>
	<datestamp>1260909000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But you can't hold a whole belief system responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole system of religion? And if the whole religion system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Shadowbearer - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!</htmltext>
<tokenext>But you ca n't hold a whole belief system responsible for the behavior of a few , sick twisted individuals .
For if you do , then should n't we blame the whole system of religion ?
And if the whole religion system is guilty , then is n't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general ?
I put it to you , Shadowbearer - is n't this an indictment of our entire American society ?
Well , you can do whatever you want to us , but we 're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America .
Gentlemen !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But you can't hold a whole belief system responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals.
For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole system of religion?
And if the whole religion system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general?
I put it to you, Shadowbearer - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society?
Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.
Gentlemen!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440974</id>
	<title>State possibly going ahead with R18+ rating</title>
	<author>Xaduurv</author>
	<datestamp>1260817920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The state of Queensland has a <a href="http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/EPetitions\_qld/CurrentEPetition.aspx?PetNum=1346&amp;lIndex=-1" title="qld.gov.au" rel="nofollow">Parliamentary E-Petition</a> [qld.gov.au]  going that will hopefully result in an R18+ rating for the state. State law in classification can overrule federal law. WIN!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The state of Queensland has a Parliamentary E-Petition [ qld.gov.au ] going that will hopefully result in an R18 + rating for the state .
State law in classification can overrule federal law .
WIN !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The state of Queensland has a Parliamentary E-Petition [qld.gov.au]  going that will hopefully result in an R18+ rating for the state.
State law in classification can overrule federal law.
WIN!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30454824</id>
	<title>Same problem here in Germany</title>
	<author>jamyskis</author>
	<datestamp>1259700120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I couldn't help but notice the dept name in the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./ newsletter - lovely people, shame about the government. I think this pretty much sums up my sentiments about Australia.</p><p>In any case, we have exactly the same problem in Germany. We do indeed have an 18 rating for games here (there's 0, 6, 12, 18). The problem is that a hell of a lot of games that would have received an MA 15+ in Australia usually get an 18 in Germany or are completely refused classification. If they're refused classification, there's a good chance the title will be "indexed" - placed on a list of media that the government considers to be harmful to young people. I think there's only been one occasion in the past five years where classification was refused but the game was not placed on the index - Clive Barker's Jericho. After that, the USK relented and gave it an 18 rating. Games that have been placed on the index include Carmageddon, El Matador, Shellshock, Dark Forces, Little Britain, Quake 1-4 etc. Castrated versions of these games are sometimes released.</p><p>The problem is as follows - in my experience, the decision to place a game on the index in Germany makes it a hot property. If USK classification is refused, there is a rush to buy the game before it is indexed, regardless of the quality. It makes for a highly desirable property and increases the popularity of a title in Germany. A lot of teenagers, too, seek out games on the basis of their "cool" factor - usually on the basis that the game is indexed. I know at the very least of 20-30 kids here in my neighbourhood here that do this. I've seen kids with Call of Duty 5 uncut (which I already have original TYVM), Manhunt 2, Dead RIsing and more. I caught a 10-year-old playing Dead Rising on his 360 a while back and I asked my friend (his old man) what he was doing playing it. He had no idea, but it didn't happen again. I still don't know where he got it from, but we only have one games store around here that deals in indexed games.</p><p>Fact is, banning a title doesn't prevent it getting into the hands of children - on the contrary, it makes the game more desirable to children and increases its popularity. On the PC, it causes the titles to be pirated more frequently, so the games are more widespread but the publisher loses money. I suspect the situation is the same in Australia - a game refused classification is more than likely a hot property for kids.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could n't help but notice the dept name in the ./ newsletter - lovely people , shame about the government .
I think this pretty much sums up my sentiments about Australia.In any case , we have exactly the same problem in Germany .
We do indeed have an 18 rating for games here ( there 's 0 , 6 , 12 , 18 ) .
The problem is that a hell of a lot of games that would have received an MA 15 + in Australia usually get an 18 in Germany or are completely refused classification .
If they 're refused classification , there 's a good chance the title will be " indexed " - placed on a list of media that the government considers to be harmful to young people .
I think there 's only been one occasion in the past five years where classification was refused but the game was not placed on the index - Clive Barker 's Jericho .
After that , the USK relented and gave it an 18 rating .
Games that have been placed on the index include Carmageddon , El Matador , Shellshock , Dark Forces , Little Britain , Quake 1-4 etc .
Castrated versions of these games are sometimes released.The problem is as follows - in my experience , the decision to place a game on the index in Germany makes it a hot property .
If USK classification is refused , there is a rush to buy the game before it is indexed , regardless of the quality .
It makes for a highly desirable property and increases the popularity of a title in Germany .
A lot of teenagers , too , seek out games on the basis of their " cool " factor - usually on the basis that the game is indexed .
I know at the very least of 20-30 kids here in my neighbourhood here that do this .
I 've seen kids with Call of Duty 5 uncut ( which I already have original TYVM ) , Manhunt 2 , Dead RIsing and more .
I caught a 10-year-old playing Dead Rising on his 360 a while back and I asked my friend ( his old man ) what he was doing playing it .
He had no idea , but it did n't happen again .
I still do n't know where he got it from , but we only have one games store around here that deals in indexed games.Fact is , banning a title does n't prevent it getting into the hands of children - on the contrary , it makes the game more desirable to children and increases its popularity .
On the PC , it causes the titles to be pirated more frequently , so the games are more widespread but the publisher loses money .
I suspect the situation is the same in Australia - a game refused classification is more than likely a hot property for kids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I couldn't help but notice the dept name in the ./ newsletter - lovely people, shame about the government.
I think this pretty much sums up my sentiments about Australia.In any case, we have exactly the same problem in Germany.
We do indeed have an 18 rating for games here (there's 0, 6, 12, 18).
The problem is that a hell of a lot of games that would have received an MA 15+ in Australia usually get an 18 in Germany or are completely refused classification.
If they're refused classification, there's a good chance the title will be "indexed" - placed on a list of media that the government considers to be harmful to young people.
I think there's only been one occasion in the past five years where classification was refused but the game was not placed on the index - Clive Barker's Jericho.
After that, the USK relented and gave it an 18 rating.
Games that have been placed on the index include Carmageddon, El Matador, Shellshock, Dark Forces, Little Britain, Quake 1-4 etc.
Castrated versions of these games are sometimes released.The problem is as follows - in my experience, the decision to place a game on the index in Germany makes it a hot property.
If USK classification is refused, there is a rush to buy the game before it is indexed, regardless of the quality.
It makes for a highly desirable property and increases the popularity of a title in Germany.
A lot of teenagers, too, seek out games on the basis of their "cool" factor - usually on the basis that the game is indexed.
I know at the very least of 20-30 kids here in my neighbourhood here that do this.
I've seen kids with Call of Duty 5 uncut (which I already have original TYVM), Manhunt 2, Dead RIsing and more.
I caught a 10-year-old playing Dead Rising on his 360 a while back and I asked my friend (his old man) what he was doing playing it.
He had no idea, but it didn't happen again.
I still don't know where he got it from, but we only have one games store around here that deals in indexed games.Fact is, banning a title doesn't prevent it getting into the hands of children - on the contrary, it makes the game more desirable to children and increases its popularity.
On the PC, it causes the titles to be pirated more frequently, so the games are more widespread but the publisher loses money.
I suspect the situation is the same in Australia - a game refused classification is more than likely a hot property for kids.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30442786</id>
	<title>Hmm..</title>
	<author>baronvoncarson</author>
	<datestamp>1260884580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's almost a contradiction in a way. With news of this, and the impending ISP level filtering that's probably going to pass, I don't know what to think!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's almost a contradiction in a way .
With news of this , and the impending ISP level filtering that 's probably going to pass , I do n't know what to think !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's almost a contradiction in a way.
With news of this, and the impending ISP level filtering that's probably going to pass, I don't know what to think!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30441410</id>
	<title>Re:Denying sexual maturity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260910620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about you guys, but I plan to talk about sex with my kids when they reach puberty. Instead of forbidding them it makes much more sense to let them know what it is and that they aren't in a hurry. Porn is also quite OK as far as I'm concerned, as long as the consumer realizes it's a fantasy.</p><p>But there are very good reasons why society has settled at the 18/20 mark for "adulthood". There are heavy neurological changes occurring in your brain from around 12 to around 25. Even if we can physically procreate much earlier than when we're adults doesn't mean that the biological ability to do so makes it a good idea. Making babies is one thing, and being able to raise them with a fair chance to become balanced individuals is another.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about you guys , but I plan to talk about sex with my kids when they reach puberty .
Instead of forbidding them it makes much more sense to let them know what it is and that they are n't in a hurry .
Porn is also quite OK as far as I 'm concerned , as long as the consumer realizes it 's a fantasy.But there are very good reasons why society has settled at the 18/20 mark for " adulthood " .
There are heavy neurological changes occurring in your brain from around 12 to around 25 .
Even if we can physically procreate much earlier than when we 're adults does n't mean that the biological ability to do so makes it a good idea .
Making babies is one thing , and being able to raise them with a fair chance to become balanced individuals is another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about you guys, but I plan to talk about sex with my kids when they reach puberty.
Instead of forbidding them it makes much more sense to let them know what it is and that they aren't in a hurry.
Porn is also quite OK as far as I'm concerned, as long as the consumer realizes it's a fantasy.But there are very good reasons why society has settled at the 18/20 mark for "adulthood".
There are heavy neurological changes occurring in your brain from around 12 to around 25.
Even if we can physically procreate much earlier than when we're adults doesn't mean that the biological ability to do so makes it a good idea.
Making babies is one thing, and being able to raise them with a fair chance to become balanced individuals is another.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30444040</id>
	<title>AvP</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1260892200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is Australia just now getting the Atari Jaguar?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is Australia just now getting the Atari Jaguar ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is Australia just now getting the Atari Jaguar?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30441142</id>
	<title>And just as</title>
	<author>Llian</author>
	<datestamp>1260820080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And just as the federal govt has announced the 'success' of its internet filter trial and has plans to put it before senate to enact it into law. Fail much?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And just as the federal govt has announced the 'success ' of its internet filter trial and has plans to put it before senate to enact it into law .
Fail much ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And just as the federal govt has announced the 'success' of its internet filter trial and has plans to put it before senate to enact it into law.
Fail much?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30441896</id>
	<title>Yes Minister should be forced on every kid</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1260873240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No kid should be allowed to graduate without being able to quote every single episode word for word.
</p><p>Know this series and all of politics will make sense.
</p><p>Oh, and I think it is telling that some US citizens say that "the powers that be" is the US version of Yes Minister. Says it all for the Americans really. To bad. Ah well, what do you expect from colonists. We shipped them off for a reason. The criminals to Australia and the religious freaks to the US. Wonder which set of natives got screwed worse.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No kid should be allowed to graduate without being able to quote every single episode word for word .
Know this series and all of politics will make sense .
Oh , and I think it is telling that some US citizens say that " the powers that be " is the US version of Yes Minister .
Says it all for the Americans really .
To bad .
Ah well , what do you expect from colonists .
We shipped them off for a reason .
The criminals to Australia and the religious freaks to the US .
Wonder which set of natives got screwed worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No kid should be allowed to graduate without being able to quote every single episode word for word.
Know this series and all of politics will make sense.
Oh, and I think it is telling that some US citizens say that "the powers that be" is the US version of Yes Minister.
Says it all for the Americans really.
To bad.
Ah well, what do you expect from colonists.
We shipped them off for a reason.
The criminals to Australia and the religious freaks to the US.
Wonder which set of natives got screwed worse.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30442200</id>
	<title>Tubgu1rl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260877440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">Mistake of electing ABOUT 700 USERS during play, this said one FreeBSD how it was supposed a BSD 3ox that what they think is raise or lower the are 7000 users Discussion I'm Love of two is list of other stagnanMt. As Linux Again. There are Irrecoverable towels on the floor Kreskin BUWLA, or BSD Vary for different Developers. The and what supplies do, or indeed what</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mistake of electing ABOUT 700 USERS during play , this said one FreeBSD how it was supposed a BSD 3ox that what they think is raise or lower the are 7000 users Discussion I 'm Love of two is list of other stagnanMt .
As Linux Again .
There are Irrecoverable towels on the floor Kreskin BUWLA , or BSD Vary for different Developers .
The and what supplies do , or indeed what [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mistake of electing ABOUT 700 USERS during play, this said one FreeBSD how it was supposed a BSD 3ox that what they think is raise or lower the are 7000 users Discussion I'm Love of two is list of other stagnanMt.
As Linux Again.
There are Irrecoverable towels on the floor Kreskin BUWLA, or BSD Vary for different Developers.
The and what supplies do, or indeed what [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440504</id>
	<title>Games are not just for kids anymore!</title>
	<author>Sirusjr</author>
	<datestamp>1260813540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its about time the Australian government realized that games are not just for kids anymore.  Its no more objectionable to have a game that is made for adults than it is to have a movie made for adults, yet some countries think there is a difference.  I doubt Aliens v. Predator has anything I haven't seen before in my games that would otherwise scandalize me as a well-adjusted adult.  We have had extreme violence in movies for years, there is nothing significantly different in games other than increased cathartic release.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its about time the Australian government realized that games are not just for kids anymore .
Its no more objectionable to have a game that is made for adults than it is to have a movie made for adults , yet some countries think there is a difference .
I doubt Aliens v. Predator has anything I have n't seen before in my games that would otherwise scandalize me as a well-adjusted adult .
We have had extreme violence in movies for years , there is nothing significantly different in games other than increased cathartic release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its about time the Australian government realized that games are not just for kids anymore.
Its no more objectionable to have a game that is made for adults than it is to have a movie made for adults, yet some countries think there is a difference.
I doubt Aliens v. Predator has anything I haven't seen before in my games that would otherwise scandalize me as a well-adjusted adult.
We have had extreme violence in movies for years, there is nothing significantly different in games other than increased cathartic release.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440490</id>
	<title>Banning doesn't do what they think it does</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260813480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aside from the usual arguments surrounding the average age of game players and my right to choose my entertainment (within reason), and shoehorning games into less restricted categories (GTA-IV, anyone?), I believe outright banning R18+ games probably increasing the availability of these games to minors.</p><p>For games that are available in stores, children are the least likely to be able to afford the games.  Relative to adults, your average minor is probably going to pirate a game rather than buy it (regardless of legality and classification).</p><p>If you ban R18+ games, then adults are going to pirate the game too - if I want to play a game I can't buy in the store, I know <i>I</i> will.  In the day of BitTorrent, more people downloading an item in a geographic area, the more accessible that item becomes in that area.</p><p>All they're doing by banning R18+ games, is giving minors more seeders when they go ahead and download it anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aside from the usual arguments surrounding the average age of game players and my right to choose my entertainment ( within reason ) , and shoehorning games into less restricted categories ( GTA-IV , anyone ?
) , I believe outright banning R18 + games probably increasing the availability of these games to minors.For games that are available in stores , children are the least likely to be able to afford the games .
Relative to adults , your average minor is probably going to pirate a game rather than buy it ( regardless of legality and classification ) .If you ban R18 + games , then adults are going to pirate the game too - if I want to play a game I ca n't buy in the store , I know I will .
In the day of BitTorrent , more people downloading an item in a geographic area , the more accessible that item becomes in that area.All they 're doing by banning R18 + games , is giving minors more seeders when they go ahead and download it anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aside from the usual arguments surrounding the average age of game players and my right to choose my entertainment (within reason), and shoehorning games into less restricted categories (GTA-IV, anyone?
), I believe outright banning R18+ games probably increasing the availability of these games to minors.For games that are available in stores, children are the least likely to be able to afford the games.
Relative to adults, your average minor is probably going to pirate a game rather than buy it (regardless of legality and classification).If you ban R18+ games, then adults are going to pirate the game too - if I want to play a game I can't buy in the store, I know I will.
In the day of BitTorrent, more people downloading an item in a geographic area, the more accessible that item becomes in that area.All they're doing by banning R18+ games, is giving minors more seeders when they go ahead and download it anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440624</id>
	<title>The same day we lose internet access...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260814500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>... we get R18+ games.
<br> <br>
Not a good trade in my opinion.
<br> <br>
PS: If you don't know what I'm talking about, see the next Australia story coming soon on Slashdot (except maybe for Australian users).</htmltext>
<tokenext>... we get R18 + games .
Not a good trade in my opinion .
PS : If you do n't know what I 'm talking about , see the next Australia story coming soon on Slashdot ( except maybe for Australian users ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... we get R18+ games.
Not a good trade in my opinion.
PS: If you don't know what I'm talking about, see the next Australia story coming soon on Slashdot (except maybe for Australian users).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440714</id>
	<title>But they've also announced internet filtering</title>
	<author>sr180</author>
	<datestamp>1260815280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Federal Government plans to implement mandatory ISP filtering for "refused classification" websites, it was <a href="http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media\_releases/2009/115" title="dbcde.gov.au">.</a> [dbcde.gov.au]</p><p>The government also released the report on the ISP filtering pilot, which was provided to the government by Enex Testlab in October, detailing the results of the blocking accuracy and performance of the filters.</p><p>Senator Conroy announced the new initiatives in a curiously scheduled press conference, with journalists only being notified 90 minutes prior to the start of proceedings.</p><p>"The Government will introduce legislative amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act to require all ISPs to block RC-rated material hosted on overseas servers", said the announcement.</p><p>"RC-rated material includes child sex abuse content, bestiality, sexual violence including rape, and the detailed instruction of crime or drug use.</p><p>"The report into the pilot trial of ISP-level filtering demonstrates that blocking RC-rated material can be done with 100\% accuracy and negligible impact on internet speed", said Conroy.</p><p>Conroy acknowledged that the filter would only block "inadvertent" exposure to R/C content, and the pilot report bluntly states that any technically competent user could circumvent the filtering.</p><p>The report also found that the filters on average "over-blocked" 3.4\% of sites that were not intended to be filtered, and that high volume sites would likely cause the filters to fail.</p><p>Initial reactions to the pilot report have been mixed, with participating ISPs praising the results (in prepared press releases), while others such as Electronic Frontiers Australia stating that it "brings more questions than answers".</p><p>The DBCDE website is unavailable due to demand for the report, which we have mirrored <a href="http://whirlpool.net.au/img/article/1852/isp\_filtering\_live\_pilot\_report\_low\_res.pdf" title="whirlpool.net.au">here</a> [whirlpool.net.au].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Federal Government plans to implement mandatory ISP filtering for " refused classification " websites , it was .
[ dbcde.gov.au ] The government also released the report on the ISP filtering pilot , which was provided to the government by Enex Testlab in October , detailing the results of the blocking accuracy and performance of the filters.Senator Conroy announced the new initiatives in a curiously scheduled press conference , with journalists only being notified 90 minutes prior to the start of proceedings .
" The Government will introduce legislative amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act to require all ISPs to block RC-rated material hosted on overseas servers " , said the announcement .
" RC-rated material includes child sex abuse content , bestiality , sexual violence including rape , and the detailed instruction of crime or drug use .
" The report into the pilot trial of ISP-level filtering demonstrates that blocking RC-rated material can be done with 100 \ % accuracy and negligible impact on internet speed " , said Conroy.Conroy acknowledged that the filter would only block " inadvertent " exposure to R/C content , and the pilot report bluntly states that any technically competent user could circumvent the filtering.The report also found that the filters on average " over-blocked " 3.4 \ % of sites that were not intended to be filtered , and that high volume sites would likely cause the filters to fail.Initial reactions to the pilot report have been mixed , with participating ISPs praising the results ( in prepared press releases ) , while others such as Electronic Frontiers Australia stating that it " brings more questions than answers " .The DBCDE website is unavailable due to demand for the report , which we have mirrored here [ whirlpool.net.au ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Federal Government plans to implement mandatory ISP filtering for "refused classification" websites, it was .
[dbcde.gov.au]The government also released the report on the ISP filtering pilot, which was provided to the government by Enex Testlab in October, detailing the results of the blocking accuracy and performance of the filters.Senator Conroy announced the new initiatives in a curiously scheduled press conference, with journalists only being notified 90 minutes prior to the start of proceedings.
"The Government will introduce legislative amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act to require all ISPs to block RC-rated material hosted on overseas servers", said the announcement.
"RC-rated material includes child sex abuse content, bestiality, sexual violence including rape, and the detailed instruction of crime or drug use.
"The report into the pilot trial of ISP-level filtering demonstrates that blocking RC-rated material can be done with 100\% accuracy and negligible impact on internet speed", said Conroy.Conroy acknowledged that the filter would only block "inadvertent" exposure to R/C content, and the pilot report bluntly states that any technically competent user could circumvent the filtering.The report also found that the filters on average "over-blocked" 3.4\% of sites that were not intended to be filtered, and that high volume sites would likely cause the filters to fail.Initial reactions to the pilot report have been mixed, with participating ISPs praising the results (in prepared press releases), while others such as Electronic Frontiers Australia stating that it "brings more questions than answers".The DBCDE website is unavailable due to demand for the report, which we have mirrored here [whirlpool.net.au].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440910</id>
	<title>Re:Banning doesn't do what they think it does</title>
	<author>williamhb</author>
	<datestamp>1260817140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Aside from the usual arguments surrounding the average age of game players and my right to choose my entertainment (within reason), and shoehorning games into less restricted categories (GTA-IV, anyone?), I believe outright banning R18+ games probably increasing the availability of these games to minors.</p><p>For games that are available in stores, children are the least likely to be able to afford the games. Relative to adults, your average minor is probably going to pirate a game rather than buy it (regardless of legality and classification).</p><p>If you ban R18+ games, then adults are going to pirate the game too - if I want to play a game I can't buy in the store, I know I will. In the day of BitTorrent, more people downloading an item in a geographic area, the more accessible that item becomes in that area.</p><p>All they're doing by banning R18+ games, is giving minors more seeders when they go ahead and download it anyway.</p></div><p>Evidence, please.</p><p>The empirical evidence from the current regime is that where a game is refused classification, the publisher will almost always make the necessary alterations (toning down certain amounts of gore etc) in order to achieve an MA15+ rating.  The current system has thus been reasonably effective -- ensuring that games are made suitable for a 15+ audience, and given that anyone in the 15-18 category is unlikely to be prevented from accessing a title simply by its having a higher rating that is a defensible approach (by which I mean "there is an argument for it" not "it is the correct approach").</p><p>To respond to your specific comments -</p><p>Children in Australia are very easily able to afford to purchase computer games -- at current prices, a game is likely to be around one to two months' pocket money (not counting additional money from a part-time job, which many 15-18 year olds have).</p><p>Regarding BitTorrent, the speed with which a title can be downloaded (ie, the number of active downloaders) isn't actually relevant to availability.  There's no part of classification law that says "it's better if you have to leave the download going overnight".  The speed of the download isn't difficulty-to-obtain, it's just latency-to-obtain, and I doubt anyone would consider a few extra hours of waiting significant.</p><p>In reality, the vast majority of items made illegally available to minors are purchased from shops in defiance of 18+ ratings: cigarettes and alcohol.  The number of 16 year-olds who can get a PS3 to play an illegally downloaded game, while large, is much fewer than the number who can get cigarettes illegally from the local store.  From an evidence-based perspective, if you want to prevent illegal access by minors, it really is physical availability from shops that should be targeted.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Aside from the usual arguments surrounding the average age of game players and my right to choose my entertainment ( within reason ) , and shoehorning games into less restricted categories ( GTA-IV , anyone ?
) , I believe outright banning R18 + games probably increasing the availability of these games to minors.For games that are available in stores , children are the least likely to be able to afford the games .
Relative to adults , your average minor is probably going to pirate a game rather than buy it ( regardless of legality and classification ) .If you ban R18 + games , then adults are going to pirate the game too - if I want to play a game I ca n't buy in the store , I know I will .
In the day of BitTorrent , more people downloading an item in a geographic area , the more accessible that item becomes in that area.All they 're doing by banning R18 + games , is giving minors more seeders when they go ahead and download it anyway.Evidence , please.The empirical evidence from the current regime is that where a game is refused classification , the publisher will almost always make the necessary alterations ( toning down certain amounts of gore etc ) in order to achieve an MA15 + rating .
The current system has thus been reasonably effective -- ensuring that games are made suitable for a 15 + audience , and given that anyone in the 15-18 category is unlikely to be prevented from accessing a title simply by its having a higher rating that is a defensible approach ( by which I mean " there is an argument for it " not " it is the correct approach " ) .To respond to your specific comments -Children in Australia are very easily able to afford to purchase computer games -- at current prices , a game is likely to be around one to two months ' pocket money ( not counting additional money from a part-time job , which many 15-18 year olds have ) .Regarding BitTorrent , the speed with which a title can be downloaded ( ie , the number of active downloaders ) is n't actually relevant to availability .
There 's no part of classification law that says " it 's better if you have to leave the download going overnight " .
The speed of the download is n't difficulty-to-obtain , it 's just latency-to-obtain , and I doubt anyone would consider a few extra hours of waiting significant.In reality , the vast majority of items made illegally available to minors are purchased from shops in defiance of 18 + ratings : cigarettes and alcohol .
The number of 16 year-olds who can get a PS3 to play an illegally downloaded game , while large , is much fewer than the number who can get cigarettes illegally from the local store .
From an evidence-based perspective , if you want to prevent illegal access by minors , it really is physical availability from shops that should be targeted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aside from the usual arguments surrounding the average age of game players and my right to choose my entertainment (within reason), and shoehorning games into less restricted categories (GTA-IV, anyone?
), I believe outright banning R18+ games probably increasing the availability of these games to minors.For games that are available in stores, children are the least likely to be able to afford the games.
Relative to adults, your average minor is probably going to pirate a game rather than buy it (regardless of legality and classification).If you ban R18+ games, then adults are going to pirate the game too - if I want to play a game I can't buy in the store, I know I will.
In the day of BitTorrent, more people downloading an item in a geographic area, the more accessible that item becomes in that area.All they're doing by banning R18+ games, is giving minors more seeders when they go ahead and download it anyway.Evidence, please.The empirical evidence from the current regime is that where a game is refused classification, the publisher will almost always make the necessary alterations (toning down certain amounts of gore etc) in order to achieve an MA15+ rating.
The current system has thus been reasonably effective -- ensuring that games are made suitable for a 15+ audience, and given that anyone in the 15-18 category is unlikely to be prevented from accessing a title simply by its having a higher rating that is a defensible approach (by which I mean "there is an argument for it" not "it is the correct approach").To respond to your specific comments -Children in Australia are very easily able to afford to purchase computer games -- at current prices, a game is likely to be around one to two months' pocket money (not counting additional money from a part-time job, which many 15-18 year olds have).Regarding BitTorrent, the speed with which a title can be downloaded (ie, the number of active downloaders) isn't actually relevant to availability.
There's no part of classification law that says "it's better if you have to leave the download going overnight".
The speed of the download isn't difficulty-to-obtain, it's just latency-to-obtain, and I doubt anyone would consider a few extra hours of waiting significant.In reality, the vast majority of items made illegally available to minors are purchased from shops in defiance of 18+ ratings: cigarettes and alcohol.
The number of 16 year-olds who can get a PS3 to play an illegally downloaded game, while large, is much fewer than the number who can get cigarettes illegally from the local store.
From an evidence-based perspective, if you want to prevent illegal access by minors, it really is physical availability from shops that should be targeted.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30447518</id>
	<title>No unrated category?</title>
	<author>harl</author>
	<datestamp>1260904620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does Australia think adults are incapable of operating on their own?  Why is there no unrated category available for people past the age of majority?</p><p>If you want to ban games to children that's fine.  But why ban them from adults?  Why does Australia think so poorly of it's citizens?</p><p>Not having an unrated category means one person can decide for the entire country what is appropriate.  That's ludicrous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does Australia think adults are incapable of operating on their own ?
Why is there no unrated category available for people past the age of majority ? If you want to ban games to children that 's fine .
But why ban them from adults ?
Why does Australia think so poorly of it 's citizens ? Not having an unrated category means one person can decide for the entire country what is appropriate .
That 's ludicrous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does Australia think adults are incapable of operating on their own?
Why is there no unrated category available for people past the age of majority?If you want to ban games to children that's fine.
But why ban them from adults?
Why does Australia think so poorly of it's citizens?Not having an unrated category means one person can decide for the entire country what is appropriate.
That's ludicrous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440736</id>
	<title>Mandatory ISP filtering to go ahead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260815400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hooray, we go forward in one direction and backwards in another direction.</p><p>Today it was announced that the report on mandatory web filtering was a success, and so the government will be going ahead with the implementation of the Great Firewall of China.</p><p><a href="http://whirlpool.net.au/news/?id=1852" title="whirlpool.net.au">http://whirlpool.net.au/news/?id=1852</a> [whirlpool.net.au]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hooray , we go forward in one direction and backwards in another direction.Today it was announced that the report on mandatory web filtering was a success , and so the government will be going ahead with the implementation of the Great Firewall of China.http : //whirlpool.net.au/news/ ? id = 1852 [ whirlpool.net.au ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hooray, we go forward in one direction and backwards in another direction.Today it was announced that the report on mandatory web filtering was a success, and so the government will be going ahead with the implementation of the Great Firewall of China.http://whirlpool.net.au/news/?id=1852 [whirlpool.net.au]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30441818</id>
	<title>Re:Denying sexual maturity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260872100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ACMA submission page to get an url banned has a Captcha to prevent robots from submitting automated complaints.  However this is irrelevent as the site also offers an email to send complaints.  So cue the 10,000,000 urls for submission.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ACMA submission page to get an url banned has a Captcha to prevent robots from submitting automated complaints .
However this is irrelevent as the site also offers an email to send complaints .
So cue the 10,000,000 urls for submission .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ACMA submission page to get an url banned has a Captcha to prevent robots from submitting automated complaints.
However this is irrelevent as the site also offers an email to send complaints.
So cue the 10,000,000 urls for submission.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30441266</id>
	<title>Should be R16+</title>
	<author>iamacat</author>
	<datestamp>1260908280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come on teenagers are having sex, drinking and smoking tobaco/pot dispite any regulations to the contrary. Set age boundary more realistically and you may see some respect for this and other laws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on teenagers are having sex , drinking and smoking tobaco/pot dispite any regulations to the contrary .
Set age boundary more realistically and you may see some respect for this and other laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on teenagers are having sex, drinking and smoking tobaco/pot dispite any regulations to the contrary.
Set age boundary more realistically and you may see some respect for this and other laws.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440588</id>
	<title>Re:Banning doesn't do what they think it does</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260814260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Telling us doesn't do much; on the other hand, the Government has <a href="http://www.ag.gov.au/gamesclassification" title="ag.gov.au">opened up a public consultation</a> [ag.gov.au] on the matter, so telling them might make things happen. Just make sure you keep it reasonable and rational, or you might end up being counter-productive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Telling us does n't do much ; on the other hand , the Government has opened up a public consultation [ ag.gov.au ] on the matter , so telling them might make things happen .
Just make sure you keep it reasonable and rational , or you might end up being counter-productive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Telling us doesn't do much; on the other hand, the Government has opened up a public consultation [ag.gov.au] on the matter, so telling them might make things happen.
Just make sure you keep it reasonable and rational, or you might end up being counter-productive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30442806</id>
	<title>Re:Banning doesn't do what they think it does</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260884760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>In reality, the vast majority of items made illegally available to minors are purchased from shops in defiance of 18+ ratings: cigarettes and alcohol.  The number of 16 year-olds who can get a PS3 to play an illegally downloaded game, while large, is much fewer than the number who can get cigarettes illegally from the local store.  From an evidence-based perspective, if you want to prevent illegal access by minors, it really is physical availability from shops that should be targeted.</p></div><p>I call bullshit on that (from my experience at least).  A few years ago it was extremely hard for me to find smokes or booze, yet drugs and illegal software were relatively easy. Cigarettes or scotch/vodka whatever would take about three days to get at school, while software would be waiting for me the next morning, or sometimes that day depending when IT class was. In terms of modifying a console, i'd have to wait until the weekend.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In reality , the vast majority of items made illegally available to minors are purchased from shops in defiance of 18 + ratings : cigarettes and alcohol .
The number of 16 year-olds who can get a PS3 to play an illegally downloaded game , while large , is much fewer than the number who can get cigarettes illegally from the local store .
From an evidence-based perspective , if you want to prevent illegal access by minors , it really is physical availability from shops that should be targeted.I call bullshit on that ( from my experience at least ) .
A few years ago it was extremely hard for me to find smokes or booze , yet drugs and illegal software were relatively easy .
Cigarettes or scotch/vodka whatever would take about three days to get at school , while software would be waiting for me the next morning , or sometimes that day depending when IT class was .
In terms of modifying a console , i 'd have to wait until the weekend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In reality, the vast majority of items made illegally available to minors are purchased from shops in defiance of 18+ ratings: cigarettes and alcohol.
The number of 16 year-olds who can get a PS3 to play an illegally downloaded game, while large, is much fewer than the number who can get cigarettes illegally from the local store.
From an evidence-based perspective, if you want to prevent illegal access by minors, it really is physical availability from shops that should be targeted.I call bullshit on that (from my experience at least).
A few years ago it was extremely hard for me to find smokes or booze, yet drugs and illegal software were relatively easy.
Cigarettes or scotch/vodka whatever would take about three days to get at school, while software would be waiting for me the next morning, or sometimes that day depending when IT class was.
In terms of modifying a console, i'd have to wait until the weekend.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30441378</id>
	<title>Re:Banning doesn't do what they think it does</title>
	<author>nulldaemon</author>
	<datestamp>1260910320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Evidence, please.</p><p>The empirical evidence from the current regime is that where a game is refused classification, the publisher will almost always make the necessary alterations (toning down certain amounts of gore etc) in order to achieve an MA15+ rating.  The current system has thus been reasonably effective -- ensuring that games are made suitable for a 15+ audience, and given that anyone in the 15-18 category is unlikely to be prevented from accessing a title simply by its having a higher rating that is a defensible approach (by which I mean "there is an argument for it" not "it is the correct approach").</p><p>To respond to your specific comments -</p><p>Children in Australia are very easily able to afford to purchase computer games -- at current prices, a game is likely to be around one to two months' pocket money (not counting additional money from a part-time job, which many 15-18 year olds have).</p><p>Regarding BitTorrent, the speed with which a title can be downloaded (ie, the number of active downloaders) isn't actually relevant to availability.  There's no part of classification law that says "it's better if you have to leave the download going overnight".  The speed of the download isn't difficulty-to-obtain, it's just latency-to-obtain, and I doubt anyone would consider a few extra hours of waiting significant.</p><p>In reality, the vast majority of items made illegally available to minors are purchased from shops in defiance of 18+ ratings: cigarettes and alcohol.  The number of 16 year-olds who can get a PS3 to play an illegally downloaded game, while large, is much fewer than the number who can get cigarettes illegally from the local store.  From an evidence-based perspective, if you want to prevent illegal access by minors, it really is physical availability from shops that should be targeted.</p></div><p>Unfortunately you're spot on: The current system has stopped the most people I know obtaining the types of games that jerk Michael Atkinson doesn't approve of. In terms of his objectives, his policy is completely effective.</p><p>The problem is that it's also stopped me playing many games (Left 4 Dead 2 comes to mind -- There's no way I'm spending my money on a second rate version). Why should I, as an adult, be told what I can and cannot do with my free time?</p><p>Basically we have to decide:</p><p>a) Whether we believe the rating system works &amp; if it doesn't, why we have it at all?<br>
b) What makes games different than any other type of media, such as movies.<br>
c) Whether we accept having our rights restricted for the sake of someone else's kids<br> (notwithstanding the fact that it's hardly proven that these games create social problems).</p><p>I hate to come off as a jerk but I couldn't give a rat's ass about nannying someone else's child. If parents don't want their children to have access to a game I'm playing then they can watch their own children. Furthermore, even if games are detrimental to children, the damage done by games is substantially less than by alcohol or cigarettes so comparisons between the two are mostly nonsense.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Evidence , please.The empirical evidence from the current regime is that where a game is refused classification , the publisher will almost always make the necessary alterations ( toning down certain amounts of gore etc ) in order to achieve an MA15 + rating .
The current system has thus been reasonably effective -- ensuring that games are made suitable for a 15 + audience , and given that anyone in the 15-18 category is unlikely to be prevented from accessing a title simply by its having a higher rating that is a defensible approach ( by which I mean " there is an argument for it " not " it is the correct approach " ) .To respond to your specific comments -Children in Australia are very easily able to afford to purchase computer games -- at current prices , a game is likely to be around one to two months ' pocket money ( not counting additional money from a part-time job , which many 15-18 year olds have ) .Regarding BitTorrent , the speed with which a title can be downloaded ( ie , the number of active downloaders ) is n't actually relevant to availability .
There 's no part of classification law that says " it 's better if you have to leave the download going overnight " .
The speed of the download is n't difficulty-to-obtain , it 's just latency-to-obtain , and I doubt anyone would consider a few extra hours of waiting significant.In reality , the vast majority of items made illegally available to minors are purchased from shops in defiance of 18 + ratings : cigarettes and alcohol .
The number of 16 year-olds who can get a PS3 to play an illegally downloaded game , while large , is much fewer than the number who can get cigarettes illegally from the local store .
From an evidence-based perspective , if you want to prevent illegal access by minors , it really is physical availability from shops that should be targeted.Unfortunately you 're spot on : The current system has stopped the most people I know obtaining the types of games that jerk Michael Atkinson does n't approve of .
In terms of his objectives , his policy is completely effective.The problem is that it 's also stopped me playing many games ( Left 4 Dead 2 comes to mind -- There 's no way I 'm spending my money on a second rate version ) .
Why should I , as an adult , be told what I can and can not do with my free time ? Basically we have to decide : a ) Whether we believe the rating system works &amp; if it does n't , why we have it at all ?
b ) What makes games different than any other type of media , such as movies .
c ) Whether we accept having our rights restricted for the sake of someone else 's kids ( notwithstanding the fact that it 's hardly proven that these games create social problems ) .I hate to come off as a jerk but I could n't give a rat 's ass about nannying someone else 's child .
If parents do n't want their children to have access to a game I 'm playing then they can watch their own children .
Furthermore , even if games are detrimental to children , the damage done by games is substantially less than by alcohol or cigarettes so comparisons between the two are mostly nonsense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Evidence, please.The empirical evidence from the current regime is that where a game is refused classification, the publisher will almost always make the necessary alterations (toning down certain amounts of gore etc) in order to achieve an MA15+ rating.
The current system has thus been reasonably effective -- ensuring that games are made suitable for a 15+ audience, and given that anyone in the 15-18 category is unlikely to be prevented from accessing a title simply by its having a higher rating that is a defensible approach (by which I mean "there is an argument for it" not "it is the correct approach").To respond to your specific comments -Children in Australia are very easily able to afford to purchase computer games -- at current prices, a game is likely to be around one to two months' pocket money (not counting additional money from a part-time job, which many 15-18 year olds have).Regarding BitTorrent, the speed with which a title can be downloaded (ie, the number of active downloaders) isn't actually relevant to availability.
There's no part of classification law that says "it's better if you have to leave the download going overnight".
The speed of the download isn't difficulty-to-obtain, it's just latency-to-obtain, and I doubt anyone would consider a few extra hours of waiting significant.In reality, the vast majority of items made illegally available to minors are purchased from shops in defiance of 18+ ratings: cigarettes and alcohol.
The number of 16 year-olds who can get a PS3 to play an illegally downloaded game, while large, is much fewer than the number who can get cigarettes illegally from the local store.
From an evidence-based perspective, if you want to prevent illegal access by minors, it really is physical availability from shops that should be targeted.Unfortunately you're spot on: The current system has stopped the most people I know obtaining the types of games that jerk Michael Atkinson doesn't approve of.
In terms of his objectives, his policy is completely effective.The problem is that it's also stopped me playing many games (Left 4 Dead 2 comes to mind -- There's no way I'm spending my money on a second rate version).
Why should I, as an adult, be told what I can and cannot do with my free time?Basically we have to decide:a) Whether we believe the rating system works &amp; if it doesn't, why we have it at all?
b) What makes games different than any other type of media, such as movies.
c) Whether we accept having our rights restricted for the sake of someone else's kids (notwithstanding the fact that it's hardly proven that these games create social problems).I hate to come off as a jerk but I couldn't give a rat's ass about nannying someone else's child.
If parents don't want their children to have access to a game I'm playing then they can watch their own children.
Furthermore, even if games are detrimental to children, the damage done by games is substantially less than by alcohol or cigarettes so comparisons between the two are mostly nonsense.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30442796</id>
	<title>Re:Banning doesn't do what they think it does</title>
	<author>sbbshoe168</author>
	<datestamp>1260884700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, Christmas sales, there are exquisite gift, here are the most fashionable and most noble gift, please come to order.For details, please consult------ <a href="http://www.etradingitems.com/" title="etradingitems.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.etradingitems.com/</a> [etradingitems.com]  ------- Best quality, Best reputation , Best services Service is our Lift. Nike shox $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&amp;g) $35 Tshirts (Polo<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 ---------- <a href="http://www.etradingitems.com/" title="etradingitems.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.etradingitems.com/</a> [etradingitems.com]
\%$^464</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Ladies and Gentlemen , Christmas sales , there are exquisite gift , here are the most fashionable and most noble gift , please come to order.For details , please consult------ http : //www.etradingitems.com/ [ etradingitems.com ] ------- Best quality , Best reputation , Best services Service is our Lift .
Nike shox $ 35 Handbags ( Coach lv fendi d&amp;g ) $ 35 Tshirts ( Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste ) $ 16 ---------- http : //www.etradingitems.com/ [ etradingitems.com ] \ % $ ^ 464</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, Christmas sales, there are exquisite gift, here are the most fashionable and most noble gift, please come to order.For details, please consult------ http://www.etradingitems.com/ [etradingitems.com]  ------- Best quality, Best reputation , Best services Service is our Lift.
Nike shox $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&amp;g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 ---------- http://www.etradingitems.com/ [etradingitems.com]
\%$^464</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440866</id>
	<title>Re:The same day we lose internet access...</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1260816660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah right, I have been hearing that for over a decade now, I will believe it when I see it. The filter is political theater to buy the votes of wacko independent senators. The Libs and Labor take turns at being good cop or bad cop.
<br> <br>
Even Mr. 2\% has gone cold on the idea since the web sites of his anti-abortion financiers <i>somehow</i> made it on to the propsed blacklist. In other words Mr 2\% has been nicely shot down by a classical ad-absurdium argument. However that won't stop some other idiot doing the same thing when he believes he holds the balance of power in the senate and it won't help educate people who still take the game seriously.
<br> <br>
If you doubt me then point to where Conroy has said a compulsory filter is a good idea. I've been asking that question on slasdot since the current round of trials began and the only quotes I ever get are where he is saying the <i>trial</i> is a good thing.
<br> <br>
"Yes Minister" is a documentry that just happens to be funny.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah right , I have been hearing that for over a decade now , I will believe it when I see it .
The filter is political theater to buy the votes of wacko independent senators .
The Libs and Labor take turns at being good cop or bad cop .
Even Mr. 2 \ % has gone cold on the idea since the web sites of his anti-abortion financiers somehow made it on to the propsed blacklist .
In other words Mr 2 \ % has been nicely shot down by a classical ad-absurdium argument .
However that wo n't stop some other idiot doing the same thing when he believes he holds the balance of power in the senate and it wo n't help educate people who still take the game seriously .
If you doubt me then point to where Conroy has said a compulsory filter is a good idea .
I 've been asking that question on slasdot since the current round of trials began and the only quotes I ever get are where he is saying the trial is a good thing .
" Yes Minister " is a documentry that just happens to be funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah right, I have been hearing that for over a decade now, I will believe it when I see it.
The filter is political theater to buy the votes of wacko independent senators.
The Libs and Labor take turns at being good cop or bad cop.
Even Mr. 2\% has gone cold on the idea since the web sites of his anti-abortion financiers somehow made it on to the propsed blacklist.
In other words Mr 2\% has been nicely shot down by a classical ad-absurdium argument.
However that won't stop some other idiot doing the same thing when he believes he holds the balance of power in the senate and it won't help educate people who still take the game seriously.
If you doubt me then point to where Conroy has said a compulsory filter is a good idea.
I've been asking that question on slasdot since the current round of trials began and the only quotes I ever get are where he is saying the trial is a good thing.
"Yes Minister" is a documentry that just happens to be funny.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440564</id>
	<title>I don't think Michael Atkinson will stand for this</title>
	<author>Psaakyrn</author>
	<datestamp>1260814020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael\_Atkinson" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael\_Atkinson</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>This person has been the sole reason why Australia doesn't have a R18+ rating, and I highly doubt a discussion paper will change his mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael \ _Atkinson [ wikipedia.org ] This person has been the sole reason why Australia does n't have a R18 + rating , and I highly doubt a discussion paper will change his mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael\_Atkinson [wikipedia.org]This person has been the sole reason why Australia doesn't have a R18+ rating, and I highly doubt a discussion paper will change his mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440642</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think Michael Atkinson will stand for t</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260814680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Correct - public level consultation won't change anything.</p><p>The commonwealth still needs to get the unanimous approval of all states and territories and Atkinson has already started that he will never support the introduction of an R18+ classification.</p><p>He's made it an election promise and unfortunately it's almost certain that he will be re-elected (The seat of croydon is overwhelming in it's support for labor).</p><p><a href="http://www.gamers4croydon.org/" title="gamers4croydon.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.gamers4croydon.org/</a> [gamers4croydon.org] are a group starting a party specifically to campaign on this issue - give them your support!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct - public level consultation wo n't change anything.The commonwealth still needs to get the unanimous approval of all states and territories and Atkinson has already started that he will never support the introduction of an R18 + classification.He 's made it an election promise and unfortunately it 's almost certain that he will be re-elected ( The seat of croydon is overwhelming in it 's support for labor ) .http : //www.gamers4croydon.org/ [ gamers4croydon.org ] are a group starting a party specifically to campaign on this issue - give them your support !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct - public level consultation won't change anything.The commonwealth still needs to get the unanimous approval of all states and territories and Atkinson has already started that he will never support the introduction of an R18+ classification.He's made it an election promise and unfortunately it's almost certain that he will be re-elected (The seat of croydon is overwhelming in it's support for labor).http://www.gamers4croydon.org/ [gamers4croydon.org] are a group starting a party specifically to campaign on this issue - give them your support!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30442174</id>
	<title>Re:Banning doesn't do what they think it does</title>
	<author>CoopersPale</author>
	<datestamp>1260877260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The empirical evidence from the current regime is that where a game is refused classification, the publisher will almost always make the necessary alterations (toning down certain amounts of gore etc) in order to achieve an MA15+ rating. The current system has thus been reasonably effective -- ensuring that games are made suitable for a 15+ audience, and given that anyone in the 15-18 category is unlikely to be prevented from accessing a title simply by its having a higher rating that is a defensible approach (by which I mean "there is an argument for it" not "it is the correct approach").</p></div></blockquote><p>True, in most cases the publisher has altered their game to get the MA15+ rating - but not in all cases.</p><p>Additionally, games that have been rated higher in other countries have been rated MA15+ in Australia because we have no higher rating. This I don't personally mind, but it suggests our rating system is flawed.</p><p>But I find the biggest hypocricy is in its present state, our ratings system for games doesn't even pass the first guiding principle of the <a href="http://www.classification.gov.au/www/cob/classification.nsf/Page/ClassificationinAustralia\_Legislation\_TheCode\_TheCode" title="classification.gov.au" rel="nofollow">Australian Classification Code</a> [classification.gov.au];</p><p>"adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want"</p><p><a href="http://sites.google.com/site/gamers4croydon/home" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">Gamers for Croyden</a> [google.com] are a new political party just set up and hopefully they'll get a few votes in Michael Atkinson's seat. They may not change his mind, but hopefully they can spread the word</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The empirical evidence from the current regime is that where a game is refused classification , the publisher will almost always make the necessary alterations ( toning down certain amounts of gore etc ) in order to achieve an MA15 + rating .
The current system has thus been reasonably effective -- ensuring that games are made suitable for a 15 + audience , and given that anyone in the 15-18 category is unlikely to be prevented from accessing a title simply by its having a higher rating that is a defensible approach ( by which I mean " there is an argument for it " not " it is the correct approach " ) .True , in most cases the publisher has altered their game to get the MA15 + rating - but not in all cases.Additionally , games that have been rated higher in other countries have been rated MA15 + in Australia because we have no higher rating .
This I do n't personally mind , but it suggests our rating system is flawed.But I find the biggest hypocricy is in its present state , our ratings system for games does n't even pass the first guiding principle of the Australian Classification Code [ classification.gov.au ] ; " adults should be able to read , hear and see what they want " Gamers for Croyden [ google.com ] are a new political party just set up and hopefully they 'll get a few votes in Michael Atkinson 's seat .
They may not change his mind , but hopefully they can spread the word</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The empirical evidence from the current regime is that where a game is refused classification, the publisher will almost always make the necessary alterations (toning down certain amounts of gore etc) in order to achieve an MA15+ rating.
The current system has thus been reasonably effective -- ensuring that games are made suitable for a 15+ audience, and given that anyone in the 15-18 category is unlikely to be prevented from accessing a title simply by its having a higher rating that is a defensible approach (by which I mean "there is an argument for it" not "it is the correct approach").True, in most cases the publisher has altered their game to get the MA15+ rating - but not in all cases.Additionally, games that have been rated higher in other countries have been rated MA15+ in Australia because we have no higher rating.
This I don't personally mind, but it suggests our rating system is flawed.But I find the biggest hypocricy is in its present state, our ratings system for games doesn't even pass the first guiding principle of the Australian Classification Code [classification.gov.au];"adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want"Gamers for Croyden [google.com] are a new political party just set up and hopefully they'll get a few votes in Michael Atkinson's seat.
They may not change his mind, but hopefully they can spread the word
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30441390</id>
	<title>Re:Banning doesn't do what they think it does</title>
	<author>lena\_10326</author>
	<datestamp>1260910440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just to counter with a devil's advocate...</p><p>Parents and grandparents have the money. It's they who buy a big chunk of games for kids. They don't or aren't technically inclined to keep up-to-date with the violence levels of the multitude of games launched every year. Even with adult ratings, it's difficult to imagine the insane levels of graphic violence in today's games. It's worse if you consider it's active participation playing the bad guy enacting kill and torture scenarios rather than passive observation rooting for the protagonist good guy. Parents think in terms of violence on par with rated R movies, which is like a Disney flick compared to the most violent games which accurately depict exploding body parts in 2x resolution of HDTV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just to counter with a devil 's advocate...Parents and grandparents have the money .
It 's they who buy a big chunk of games for kids .
They do n't or are n't technically inclined to keep up-to-date with the violence levels of the multitude of games launched every year .
Even with adult ratings , it 's difficult to imagine the insane levels of graphic violence in today 's games .
It 's worse if you consider it 's active participation playing the bad guy enacting kill and torture scenarios rather than passive observation rooting for the protagonist good guy .
Parents think in terms of violence on par with rated R movies , which is like a Disney flick compared to the most violent games which accurately depict exploding body parts in 2x resolution of HDTV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just to counter with a devil's advocate...Parents and grandparents have the money.
It's they who buy a big chunk of games for kids.
They don't or aren't technically inclined to keep up-to-date with the violence levels of the multitude of games launched every year.
Even with adult ratings, it's difficult to imagine the insane levels of graphic violence in today's games.
It's worse if you consider it's active participation playing the bad guy enacting kill and torture scenarios rather than passive observation rooting for the protagonist good guy.
Parents think in terms of violence on par with rated R movies, which is like a Disney flick compared to the most violent games which accurately depict exploding body parts in 2x resolution of HDTV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440956</id>
	<title>Re:Games are not just for kids anymore!</title>
	<author>Samah</author>
	<datestamp>1260817680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Its about time the Australian government realized that games are not just for kids anymore.</p></div><p>This has nothing to do with the government's opinion as a whole.</p><p>Any changes to the film and literature classification system must be approved unanimously by the Attorney-Generals.  Michael Atkinson (AG of South Australia) is the only one against the introduction of an R18+ rating.  His arguments are essentially "think of the children"-based.  He fully understands the "games are not just for kids anymore" argument but is on a personal crusade to protect the country from anything he sees as bad for children.  He will never change his opinion because it would make him look weak.  Nothing will happen unless his ability to veto the decision is revoked.</p><p>
It almost makes me ashamed to live in the same state as him.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its about time the Australian government realized that games are not just for kids anymore.This has nothing to do with the government 's opinion as a whole.Any changes to the film and literature classification system must be approved unanimously by the Attorney-Generals .
Michael Atkinson ( AG of South Australia ) is the only one against the introduction of an R18 + rating .
His arguments are essentially " think of the children " -based .
He fully understands the " games are not just for kids anymore " argument but is on a personal crusade to protect the country from anything he sees as bad for children .
He will never change his opinion because it would make him look weak .
Nothing will happen unless his ability to veto the decision is revoked .
It almost makes me ashamed to live in the same state as him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its about time the Australian government realized that games are not just for kids anymore.This has nothing to do with the government's opinion as a whole.Any changes to the film and literature classification system must be approved unanimously by the Attorney-Generals.
Michael Atkinson (AG of South Australia) is the only one against the introduction of an R18+ rating.
His arguments are essentially "think of the children"-based.
He fully understands the "games are not just for kids anymore" argument but is on a personal crusade to protect the country from anything he sees as bad for children.
He will never change his opinion because it would make him look weak.
Nothing will happen unless his ability to veto the decision is revoked.
It almost makes me ashamed to live in the same state as him.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440894</id>
	<title>Denying sexual maturity</title>
	<author>shadowbearer</author>
	<datestamp>1260816960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; When does this shit stop?</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Most human beings reach sexual maturity - that is, the age where their hormones are in full swing - somewhere between the ages of 8 and 14 as measured by earth's orbit around the sun.</p><p>
&nbsp; At that point they are capable of producing offspring. At that point, their bodies have entered into the physical stages where producing offspring is a *physical imperative* - ie, the hormones that produce the desire to mate are in full swing.</p><p>
&nbsp; Now this seems to have worked for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years. After all, we are still around as a species. This is all very well established scientific biological, and realistic, fact.</p><p>
&nbsp; So... this whole concept of offspring not being able to view other members of their species sans clothing, or in sexual congress, or to engage in said sexual congress themselves, surely must be a societal influence. Am I correct so far?</p><p>
&nbsp; If so, then if one takes the view of many of those who feel that those members of society younger than a certain age (it differs in various societies, but let's take 18 orbits of the earth about it's star as the number here, because it's what's being bandied about) aren't "ready" to procreate, aren't "ready" to raise those offspring to be productive members of said society, where does the fault lie?  Does it lie with the offspring having offspring, or a failure of the society to teach those humans how to raise their own offspring before and during the time when they become physically capable, indeed even when their bodies demand, that they produce offspring?</p><p>
&nbsp; Put more simply, maybe instead of telling kids they can't have sex, maybe we as a society should be teaching them *before* puberty what it all means, that they will experience it, and when they do, to guide them thru the process, rather than telling them "Sorry, no, you can't do that. Because we say so."</p><p>
&nbsp; Now, wait a minute.  One of the driving beliefs amongst many of those in many societies which restrict the ages at which young human beings can procreate is a belief in a supernatural deity who, in the words of their own creed, once said "be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth".  Yet the same holders of that belief also tend to be in the forefront of those who tell young human beings that they cannot procreate, until they have reached some arbitrarily decided "age of reason"; which with some of them seems to be any age younger than they are, regardless of the age they have reached.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Not only that, but many members of that society seem to have reached the conclusion that viewing an unclothed member of their own species seems to fall within some concept called "evil" - which is apparently bad - and which makes one wonder how those members of the species seem to reproduce themselves in such great numbers. Perhaps they do it in the dark.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>
&nbsp; Does anyone else ever wonder whether or not human society is becoming more and more irrational? Nevermind, redundant question<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>SB</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    When does this shit stop ?
    Most human beings reach sexual maturity - that is , the age where their hormones are in full swing - somewhere between the ages of 8 and 14 as measured by earth 's orbit around the sun .
  At that point they are capable of producing offspring .
At that point , their bodies have entered into the physical stages where producing offspring is a * physical imperative * - ie , the hormones that produce the desire to mate are in full swing .
  Now this seems to have worked for hundreds of thousands , if not millions of years .
After all , we are still around as a species .
This is all very well established scientific biological , and realistic , fact .
  So... this whole concept of offspring not being able to view other members of their species sans clothing , or in sexual congress , or to engage in said sexual congress themselves , surely must be a societal influence .
Am I correct so far ?
  If so , then if one takes the view of many of those who feel that those members of society younger than a certain age ( it differs in various societies , but let 's take 18 orbits of the earth about it 's star as the number here , because it 's what 's being bandied about ) are n't " ready " to procreate , are n't " ready " to raise those offspring to be productive members of said society , where does the fault lie ?
Does it lie with the offspring having offspring , or a failure of the society to teach those humans how to raise their own offspring before and during the time when they become physically capable , indeed even when their bodies demand , that they produce offspring ?
  Put more simply , maybe instead of telling kids they ca n't have sex , maybe we as a society should be teaching them * before * puberty what it all means , that they will experience it , and when they do , to guide them thru the process , rather than telling them " Sorry , no , you ca n't do that .
Because we say so .
"   Now , wait a minute .
One of the driving beliefs amongst many of those in many societies which restrict the ages at which young human beings can procreate is a belief in a supernatural deity who , in the words of their own creed , once said " be fruitful , and multiply , and fill the earth " .
Yet the same holders of that belief also tend to be in the forefront of those who tell young human beings that they can not procreate , until they have reached some arbitrarily decided " age of reason " ; which with some of them seems to be any age younger than they are , regardless of the age they have reached .
    Not only that , but many members of that society seem to have reached the conclusion that viewing an unclothed member of their own species seems to fall within some concept called " evil " - which is apparently bad - and which makes one wonder how those members of the species seem to reproduce themselves in such great numbers .
Perhaps they do it in the dark .
.. .   Does anyone else ever wonder whether or not human society is becoming more and more irrational ?
Nevermind , redundant question ; ) SB  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    When does this shit stop?
    Most human beings reach sexual maturity - that is, the age where their hormones are in full swing - somewhere between the ages of 8 and 14 as measured by earth's orbit around the sun.
  At that point they are capable of producing offspring.
At that point, their bodies have entered into the physical stages where producing offspring is a *physical imperative* - ie, the hormones that produce the desire to mate are in full swing.
  Now this seems to have worked for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years.
After all, we are still around as a species.
This is all very well established scientific biological, and realistic, fact.
  So... this whole concept of offspring not being able to view other members of their species sans clothing, or in sexual congress, or to engage in said sexual congress themselves, surely must be a societal influence.
Am I correct so far?
  If so, then if one takes the view of many of those who feel that those members of society younger than a certain age (it differs in various societies, but let's take 18 orbits of the earth about it's star as the number here, because it's what's being bandied about) aren't "ready" to procreate, aren't "ready" to raise those offspring to be productive members of said society, where does the fault lie?
Does it lie with the offspring having offspring, or a failure of the society to teach those humans how to raise their own offspring before and during the time when they become physically capable, indeed even when their bodies demand, that they produce offspring?
  Put more simply, maybe instead of telling kids they can't have sex, maybe we as a society should be teaching them *before* puberty what it all means, that they will experience it, and when they do, to guide them thru the process, rather than telling them "Sorry, no, you can't do that.
Because we say so.
"
  Now, wait a minute.
One of the driving beliefs amongst many of those in many societies which restrict the ages at which young human beings can procreate is a belief in a supernatural deity who, in the words of their own creed, once said "be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth".
Yet the same holders of that belief also tend to be in the forefront of those who tell young human beings that they cannot procreate, until they have reached some arbitrarily decided "age of reason"; which with some of them seems to be any age younger than they are, regardless of the age they have reached.
    Not only that, but many members of that society seem to have reached the conclusion that viewing an unclothed member of their own species seems to fall within some concept called "evil" - which is apparently bad - and which makes one wonder how those members of the species seem to reproduce themselves in such great numbers.
Perhaps they do it in the dark.
...
  Does anyone else ever wonder whether or not human society is becoming more and more irrational?
Nevermind, redundant question ;)SB
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30442498</id>
	<title>Re:Banning doesn't do what they think it does</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260881220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They've got their new internet filter that they're pushing through to prevent this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've got their new internet filter that they 're pushing through to prevent this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've got their new internet filter that they're pushing through to prevent this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440852</id>
	<title>I wrote this on the issue, before the AvP case</title>
	<author>nicolasmendo</author>
	<datestamp>1260816480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably the most shocking revelation about Australia for your average international Media Studies student is the deep reach censorship has in this country. I had heard news of an overregulated Australia before travelling to Melbourne, but those reports seemed like exaggeration. Having lived for a few months down under, overwhelming evidence defeats disbelief and sheer astonishment settles in. Why does a society that praises itself so highly for its openness, progressive achievements and multiculturalism allow crippling censorship legislation to evolve into such a pervasive and ubiquitous fog?</p><p>The latest case of ridiculous censorship in Australia is the banning and later un-banning of &ldquo;Left 4 Dead 2&rdquo;, a video game published by Electronic Arts. My concern about the banning of a game characterised as &lsquo;violent&rsquo; is more about the value of freedom than a matter of personal interest. For the record, I don&rsquo;t own a video game console, and, for the record, I would probably prefer spending my time and money in one of Melbourne&rsquo;s many fine dining venues than playing video games. But the issue lies precisely in the importance of that choice. Should censors consider that sophisticated cuisine is wasteful, they couldn&rsquo;t prevent me from enjoying it. Why can they then limit someone&rsquo;s choice when it comes to videogames?  It is the role of adult citizens, not the government, to decide whether they spend an evening beheading zombies or having seafood and wine. This choice has to be reclaimed as a citizen right beyond the reach of moral entrepreneurs.</p><p>Chronicles of this issue include episodes that are simultaneously sad and funny, like the classic movie &ldquo;Salo&rdquo; by Pier Paolo Passolini which was banned in Australia twice, or the video game &ldquo;Marc Ecko&rdquo; which was never sold here because of its depictions of the criminal horrors of graffiti art.</p><p>In September 15 2009, the Classification Board issued a report explaining that in this game &ldquo;attacks cause copious amounts of blood spray and splatter, decapitations and limb dismemberment as well as locational damage where contact is made to the enemy which may reveal skeletal bits and gore&rdquo;. According to current legislation if the Board determines that a video game is unsuitable for persons under fifteen years old, it can not be sold in Australian territory.</p><p>In contrast to legislation regarding film, video games lack an R18+ classification. Why? Unbelievable as it may sound, this policy affecting all of Australian adult population is the decision of one individual. I am talking, of course, of Mr. Michael Atkinson, South Australian Attorney-General. Australian censorship parameters can only be modified by unanimous decisions taken by all Attorneys General, and Mr Atkinson alone has for years been blocking the creation of an R18+ category for video games.</p><p>Mr Atkinson argues that &ldquo;an R18+ rating for electronic games will greatly increase the risk of children and vulnerable adults being exposed to damaging images and messages&rdquo;.</p><p>What Mr Atkinson means by this so called &lsquo;risk&rsquo; is that video game discs with violent content, belonging to the adults in the family, might be found in their houses by children who could then play these games. This is the argument used to support the need to ban all games with content considered unsuitable for children. The implication is that adults are not to be trusted, and the contradiction is that when it comes to pornographic DVDs the same consideration somehow does not apply. According to Atkinson&rsquo;s logic kids are able to find games around the house, but not movies.</p><p>There is also an underlying problem with his argument: the way he presents the problem, in function of the &lsquo;risk&rsquo;, cleverly plants the assumption that video games are &lsquo;damaging&rsquo; in a way that makes it seem beyond debate. A proper dissection of the idea that videogames are somehow negative to kids would fill the whole newspaper for yea</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably the most shocking revelation about Australia for your average international Media Studies student is the deep reach censorship has in this country .
I had heard news of an overregulated Australia before travelling to Melbourne , but those reports seemed like exaggeration .
Having lived for a few months down under , overwhelming evidence defeats disbelief and sheer astonishment settles in .
Why does a society that praises itself so highly for its openness , progressive achievements and multiculturalism allow crippling censorship legislation to evolve into such a pervasive and ubiquitous fog ? The latest case of ridiculous censorship in Australia is the banning and later un-banning of    Left 4 Dead 2    , a video game published by Electronic Arts .
My concern about the banning of a game characterised as    violent    is more about the value of freedom than a matter of personal interest .
For the record , I don    t own a video game console , and , for the record , I would probably prefer spending my time and money in one of Melbourne    s many fine dining venues than playing video games .
But the issue lies precisely in the importance of that choice .
Should censors consider that sophisticated cuisine is wasteful , they couldn    t prevent me from enjoying it .
Why can they then limit someone    s choice when it comes to videogames ?
It is the role of adult citizens , not the government , to decide whether they spend an evening beheading zombies or having seafood and wine .
This choice has to be reclaimed as a citizen right beyond the reach of moral entrepreneurs.Chronicles of this issue include episodes that are simultaneously sad and funny , like the classic movie    Salo    by Pier Paolo Passolini which was banned in Australia twice , or the video game    Marc Ecko    which was never sold here because of its depictions of the criminal horrors of graffiti art.In September 15 2009 , the Classification Board issued a report explaining that in this game    attacks cause copious amounts of blood spray and splatter , decapitations and limb dismemberment as well as locational damage where contact is made to the enemy which may reveal skeletal bits and gore    .
According to current legislation if the Board determines that a video game is unsuitable for persons under fifteen years old , it can not be sold in Australian territory.In contrast to legislation regarding film , video games lack an R18 + classification .
Why ? Unbelievable as it may sound , this policy affecting all of Australian adult population is the decision of one individual .
I am talking , of course , of Mr. Michael Atkinson , South Australian Attorney-General .
Australian censorship parameters can only be modified by unanimous decisions taken by all Attorneys General , and Mr Atkinson alone has for years been blocking the creation of an R18 + category for video games.Mr Atkinson argues that    an R18 + rating for electronic games will greatly increase the risk of children and vulnerable adults being exposed to damaging images and messages    .What Mr Atkinson means by this so called    risk    is that video game discs with violent content , belonging to the adults in the family , might be found in their houses by children who could then play these games .
This is the argument used to support the need to ban all games with content considered unsuitable for children .
The implication is that adults are not to be trusted , and the contradiction is that when it comes to pornographic DVDs the same consideration somehow does not apply .
According to Atkinson    s logic kids are able to find games around the house , but not movies.There is also an underlying problem with his argument : the way he presents the problem , in function of the    risk    , cleverly plants the assumption that video games are    damaging    in a way that makes it seem beyond debate .
A proper dissection of the idea that videogames are somehow negative to kids would fill the whole newspaper for yea</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably the most shocking revelation about Australia for your average international Media Studies student is the deep reach censorship has in this country.
I had heard news of an overregulated Australia before travelling to Melbourne, but those reports seemed like exaggeration.
Having lived for a few months down under, overwhelming evidence defeats disbelief and sheer astonishment settles in.
Why does a society that praises itself so highly for its openness, progressive achievements and multiculturalism allow crippling censorship legislation to evolve into such a pervasive and ubiquitous fog?The latest case of ridiculous censorship in Australia is the banning and later un-banning of “Left 4 Dead 2”, a video game published by Electronic Arts.
My concern about the banning of a game characterised as ‘violent’ is more about the value of freedom than a matter of personal interest.
For the record, I don’t own a video game console, and, for the record, I would probably prefer spending my time and money in one of Melbourne’s many fine dining venues than playing video games.
But the issue lies precisely in the importance of that choice.
Should censors consider that sophisticated cuisine is wasteful, they couldn’t prevent me from enjoying it.
Why can they then limit someone’s choice when it comes to videogames?
It is the role of adult citizens, not the government, to decide whether they spend an evening beheading zombies or having seafood and wine.
This choice has to be reclaimed as a citizen right beyond the reach of moral entrepreneurs.Chronicles of this issue include episodes that are simultaneously sad and funny, like the classic movie “Salo” by Pier Paolo Passolini which was banned in Australia twice, or the video game “Marc Ecko” which was never sold here because of its depictions of the criminal horrors of graffiti art.In September 15 2009, the Classification Board issued a report explaining that in this game “attacks cause copious amounts of blood spray and splatter, decapitations and limb dismemberment as well as locational damage where contact is made to the enemy which may reveal skeletal bits and gore”.
According to current legislation if the Board determines that a video game is unsuitable for persons under fifteen years old, it can not be sold in Australian territory.In contrast to legislation regarding film, video games lack an R18+ classification.
Why? Unbelievable as it may sound, this policy affecting all of Australian adult population is the decision of one individual.
I am talking, of course, of Mr. Michael Atkinson, South Australian Attorney-General.
Australian censorship parameters can only be modified by unanimous decisions taken by all Attorneys General, and Mr Atkinson alone has for years been blocking the creation of an R18+ category for video games.Mr Atkinson argues that “an R18+ rating for electronic games will greatly increase the risk of children and vulnerable adults being exposed to damaging images and messages”.What Mr Atkinson means by this so called ‘risk’ is that video game discs with violent content, belonging to the adults in the family, might be found in their houses by children who could then play these games.
This is the argument used to support the need to ban all games with content considered unsuitable for children.
The implication is that adults are not to be trusted, and the contradiction is that when it comes to pornographic DVDs the same consideration somehow does not apply.
According to Atkinson’s logic kids are able to find games around the house, but not movies.There is also an underlying problem with his argument: the way he presents the problem, in function of the ‘risk’, cleverly plants the assumption that video games are ‘damaging’ in a way that makes it seem beyond debate.
A proper dissection of the idea that videogames are somehow negative to kids would fill the whole newspaper for yea</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440524</id>
	<title>Democracy...</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1260813720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>...is when the people give one state AG the power to frustrate the wishes of all the other state AG's and the people who pay his wages.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...is when the people give one state AG the power to frustrate the wishes of all the other state AG 's and the people who pay his wages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is when the people give one state AG the power to frustrate the wishes of all the other state AG's and the people who pay his wages.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30442824</id>
	<title>Captain Obvious official stament.</title>
	<author>Tei</author>
	<datestamp>1260884940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If there are mature people in Aus, it make sense to able productions intended for mature people (&gt;18). Also, what is the logic of banning somethin unclassified by default?  fans production, personal texts and games..  the world don't revolve around Aus, so there are more games that will never ask for unclassification, than games classified. All these flash games, indie games, and open source games will pretty much ignore a classification board. Maybe the board sould work the other way, ban things that are proven bad for everyone.</p><p>If you don't like your govern, vote different people next time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If there are mature people in Aus , it make sense to able productions intended for mature people ( &gt; 18 ) .
Also , what is the logic of banning somethin unclassified by default ?
fans production , personal texts and games.. the world do n't revolve around Aus , so there are more games that will never ask for unclassification , than games classified .
All these flash games , indie games , and open source games will pretty much ignore a classification board .
Maybe the board sould work the other way , ban things that are proven bad for everyone.If you do n't like your govern , vote different people next time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there are mature people in Aus, it make sense to able productions intended for mature people (&gt;18).
Also, what is the logic of banning somethin unclassified by default?
fans production, personal texts and games..  the world don't revolve around Aus, so there are more games that will never ask for unclassification, than games classified.
All these flash games, indie games, and open source games will pretty much ignore a classification board.
Maybe the board sould work the other way, ban things that are proven bad for everyone.If you don't like your govern, vote different people next time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30442332</id>
	<title>Re:But they've also announced internet filtering</title>
	<author>BiggerIsBetter</author>
	<datestamp>1260879240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>RC-rated material includes child sex abuse content</p></div><p>Think of the children, but not like that you pervert, so OK</p><p><div class="quote"><p>bestiality</p></div><p>Think of the animals, but not like that you pervert, so OK</p><p><div class="quote"><p>sexual violence including rape</p></div><p>Only sexual violence? Is it worse than all the other kinds, or are the other kinds good for us? Should polite society pretend that violence is all guns and fistfights?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>and the detailed instruction of crime or drug use</p></div><p>This is were it goes from protecting people from freaks with questionable sexual issues (why is always about the sex?!) to restricting access to information. Too far, Australia. Too far.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>RC-rated material includes child sex abuse contentThink of the children , but not like that you pervert , so OKbestialityThink of the animals , but not like that you pervert , so OKsexual violence including rapeOnly sexual violence ?
Is it worse than all the other kinds , or are the other kinds good for us ?
Should polite society pretend that violence is all guns and fistfights ? and the detailed instruction of crime or drug useThis is were it goes from protecting people from freaks with questionable sexual issues ( why is always about the sex ? !
) to restricting access to information .
Too far , Australia .
Too far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RC-rated material includes child sex abuse contentThink of the children, but not like that you pervert, so OKbestialityThink of the animals, but not like that you pervert, so OKsexual violence including rapeOnly sexual violence?
Is it worse than all the other kinds, or are the other kinds good for us?
Should polite society pretend that violence is all guns and fistfights?and the detailed instruction of crime or drug useThis is were it goes from protecting people from freaks with questionable sexual issues (why is always about the sex?!
) to restricting access to information.
Too far, Australia.
Too far.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30442502</id>
	<title>Re:Denying sexual maturity</title>
	<author>zigmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1260881280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Speaking a sexual maturity here's a joke I heard (I think on rec.humor):<br>A preacher spots the neighbor boy, who is 5 years old, mowing the lawn with a beer in hand. Absolutely incensed, he rushes over to reprimand the ruffian. The boy responds, "Oh that's nuthin'. I got laid when I was 3."<br>The preacher inquires, "Well how did that happen?"<br>To which the boy replies, "I don't remember. I was trashed."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking a sexual maturity here 's a joke I heard ( I think on rec.humor ) : A preacher spots the neighbor boy , who is 5 years old , mowing the lawn with a beer in hand .
Absolutely incensed , he rushes over to reprimand the ruffian .
The boy responds , " Oh that 's nuthin' .
I got laid when I was 3 .
" The preacher inquires , " Well how did that happen ?
" To which the boy replies , " I do n't remember .
I was trashed .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking a sexual maturity here's a joke I heard (I think on rec.humor):A preacher spots the neighbor boy, who is 5 years old, mowing the lawn with a beer in hand.
Absolutely incensed, he rushes over to reprimand the ruffian.
The boy responds, "Oh that's nuthin'.
I got laid when I was 3.
"The preacher inquires, "Well how did that happen?
"To which the boy replies, "I don't remember.
I was trashed.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440864</id>
	<title>This is a complete and utter waste of time.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260816600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Due to the cooperative nature of the Scheme, any major changes to classification policy, such as the introduction of an R 18+ classification for computer games, must be unanimously agreed by Commonwealth, State and Territory Censorship Ministers."</p><p>Atkinson will stop it, don't bother getting your hopes up, it's pointless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Due to the cooperative nature of the Scheme , any major changes to classification policy , such as the introduction of an R 18 + classification for computer games , must be unanimously agreed by Commonwealth , State and Territory Censorship Ministers .
" Atkinson will stop it , do n't bother getting your hopes up , it 's pointless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Due to the cooperative nature of the Scheme, any major changes to classification policy, such as the introduction of an R 18+ classification for computer games, must be unanimously agreed by Commonwealth, State and Territory Censorship Ministers.
"Atkinson will stop it, don't bother getting your hopes up, it's pointless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30441916</id>
	<title>Insult to Australians</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260873540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are many losers in this battle. Australian retailers lose out on sales of games, and many of these banned games are the highest selling ones on the market.</p><p>Game publishers are losing revenue because in the absence of a product to buy, people are turning to Bittorrent and downloading the pirated versions.</p><p>The joke is that you can still buy these games overseas, or download online.  The ban is essentially useless and only forces people to get it via other means.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are many losers in this battle .
Australian retailers lose out on sales of games , and many of these banned games are the highest selling ones on the market.Game publishers are losing revenue because in the absence of a product to buy , people are turning to Bittorrent and downloading the pirated versions.The joke is that you can still buy these games overseas , or download online .
The ban is essentially useless and only forces people to get it via other means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are many losers in this battle.
Australian retailers lose out on sales of games, and many of these banned games are the highest selling ones on the market.Game publishers are losing revenue because in the absence of a product to buy, people are turning to Bittorrent and downloading the pirated versions.The joke is that you can still buy these games overseas, or download online.
The ban is essentially useless and only forces people to get it via other means.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2224208_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30452518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2224208_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30442924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2224208_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30453034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2224208_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30442796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2224208_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30441410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2224208_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30442806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2224208_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30445460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2224208_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30447862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2224208_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30443866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2224208_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30441666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2224208_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2224208_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30442238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2224208_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30442668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2224208_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30441818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2224208_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30442498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2224208_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30441378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2224208_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30447518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2224208_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30454100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2224208_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2224208_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2224208_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30441304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2224208_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30442502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2224208_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30442332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2224208_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30442174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2224208_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2224208_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30442766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2224208_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30441896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2224208_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30441132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2224208_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30441390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2224208_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30442032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2224208.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30441142
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2224208.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30442332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30442238
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2224208.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2224208.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30442032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30441132
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2224208.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440588
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440836
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30454100
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30447518
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30441666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30447862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30442796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440910
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30441378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30442806
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30443866
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30442174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30441390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30442498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440732
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2224208.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30441266
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2224208.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30442502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30441818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30441304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30442924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30441410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30442668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30445460
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2224208.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2224208.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2224208.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30442766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2224208.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440866
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30441896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2224208.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440736
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2224208.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440760
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2224208.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440614
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2224208.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30453034
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2224208.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440864
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2224208.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440956
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30452518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2224208.30440952
</commentlist>
</conversation>
