<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_25_0019250</id>
	<title>Fraudulent Anti-Terrorist Software Led US To Ground Planes</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1261745880000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>The Register, citing this <a href="http://www.playboy.com/articles/the-man-who-conned-the-pentagon-dennis-montgomery/index.html?page=1">Playboy article</a>, reports that a Nevada man named Dennis Montgomery was able in 2003 to <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/24/cia\_montgomery/">connive his way into a position of respectability at the CIA</a> on the basis of his company's claimed ability, using software, to "detect and decrypt 'barcodes' in broadcasts by Al Jazeera, the Qatari news station." Montgomery was CTO of Reno-based eTreppid Technologies, which produced bucketloads of data purported to represent "geographic coordinates and flight numbers" hidden in these broadcasts. All of which, it seems, was hokum, finally debunked in cooperation with a branch of the French intelligence service &mdash; but not, says the article, before the fabricated information, chalked up to "credible sources," was used as justification to ground some international flights, and even evacuate New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Register , citing this Playboy article , reports that a Nevada man named Dennis Montgomery was able in 2003 to connive his way into a position of respectability at the CIA on the basis of his company 's claimed ability , using software , to " detect and decrypt 'barcodes ' in broadcasts by Al Jazeera , the Qatari news station .
" Montgomery was CTO of Reno-based eTreppid Technologies , which produced bucketloads of data purported to represent " geographic coordinates and flight numbers " hidden in these broadcasts .
All of which , it seems , was hokum , finally debunked in cooperation with a branch of the French intelligence service    but not , says the article , before the fabricated information , chalked up to " credible sources , " was used as justification to ground some international flights , and even evacuate New York 's Metropolitan Museum of Art .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Register, citing this Playboy article, reports that a Nevada man named Dennis Montgomery was able in 2003 to connive his way into a position of respectability at the CIA on the basis of his company's claimed ability, using software, to "detect and decrypt 'barcodes' in broadcasts by Al Jazeera, the Qatari news station.
" Montgomery was CTO of Reno-based eTreppid Technologies, which produced bucketloads of data purported to represent "geographic coordinates and flight numbers" hidden in these broadcasts.
All of which, it seems, was hokum, finally debunked in cooperation with a branch of the French intelligence service — but not, says the article, before the fabricated information, chalked up to "credible sources," was used as justification to ground some international flights, and even evacuate New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550628</id>
	<title>Re:Deluisional idiot or con man?</title>
	<author>Suki I</author>
	<datestamp>1261752060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The government already looks bad on this, so no worse to prosecute.  Shouldn't some fraud charge be appropriate?

At this point we don't know what other agencies were involved.  For all we know they could have been using him as a decoy of sorts, or tracking his contacts.  We probably won't know for a long time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The government already looks bad on this , so no worse to prosecute .
Should n't some fraud charge be appropriate ?
At this point we do n't know what other agencies were involved .
For all we know they could have been using him as a decoy of sorts , or tracking his contacts .
We probably wo n't know for a long time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government already looks bad on this, so no worse to prosecute.
Shouldn't some fraud charge be appropriate?
At this point we don't know what other agencies were involved.
For all we know they could have been using him as a decoy of sorts, or tracking his contacts.
We probably won't know for a long time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30551716</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, what?</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1261767240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Playboy? Articles? Hell, 80\% of the people here doesn't read Slashdot for the articles. The other 20\% is lying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Playboy ?
Articles ? Hell , 80 \ % of the people here does n't read Slashdot for the articles .
The other 20 \ % is lying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Playboy?
Articles? Hell, 80\% of the people here doesn't read Slashdot for the articles.
The other 20\% is lying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550618</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261751940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Playboy - and, hell, even Penthouse - have produced some great articles. It's a joke, yeah, but it's true.</p><p>I guess when you're flush with cash from gash, you can spend a few dollars to hire investigative journalists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Playboy - and , hell , even Penthouse - have produced some great articles .
It 's a joke , yeah , but it 's true.I guess when you 're flush with cash from gash , you can spend a few dollars to hire investigative journalists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Playboy - and, hell, even Penthouse - have produced some great articles.
It's a joke, yeah, but it's true.I guess when you're flush with cash from gash, you can spend a few dollars to hire investigative journalists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30552286</id>
	<title>Re:This just shows how broken it all is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261774680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really. The safeguards are not on the administrative level, its on the judicial - meaning, law enforcement may screw up, but only if courts screw up as well will they succeed in screwing you. Not saying that the courts doesn't screw up, but your statement is false.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really .
The safeguards are not on the administrative level , its on the judicial - meaning , law enforcement may screw up , but only if courts screw up as well will they succeed in screwing you .
Not saying that the courts does n't screw up , but your statement is false .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.
The safeguards are not on the administrative level, its on the judicial - meaning, law enforcement may screw up, but only if courts screw up as well will they succeed in screwing you.
Not saying that the courts doesn't screw up, but your statement is false.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550848</id>
	<title>Re:Flights</title>
	<author>calmofthestorm</author>
	<datestamp>1261756260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because the US is now self-terrorizing, no bombers needed. We needlessly disrupt and frighten on our own to keep people on edge. And because once grown, government never shrinks, the massive increase in HSA and other such frightmongering will be a part of our culture (and budget) for the rest of United States history.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the US is now self-terrorizing , no bombers needed .
We needlessly disrupt and frighten on our own to keep people on edge .
And because once grown , government never shrinks , the massive increase in HSA and other such frightmongering will be a part of our culture ( and budget ) for the rest of United States history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the US is now self-terrorizing, no bombers needed.
We needlessly disrupt and frighten on our own to keep people on edge.
And because once grown, government never shrinks, the massive increase in HSA and other such frightmongering will be a part of our culture (and budget) for the rest of United States history.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30554132</id>
	<title>"And to think people like you once ran a country."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261762980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dennis has been at this awhile in one form or another:<br>http://www.sqnlaw.com/2008/01/page-v-superior-court.html<br>Search for the word "oral".</p><p>The title quote is from the 2006 German film "The Lives of Others."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dennis has been at this awhile in one form or another : http : //www.sqnlaw.com/2008/01/page-v-superior-court.htmlSearch for the word " oral " .The title quote is from the 2006 German film " The Lives of Others .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dennis has been at this awhile in one form or another:http://www.sqnlaw.com/2008/01/page-v-superior-court.htmlSearch for the word "oral".The title quote is from the 2006 German film "The Lives of Others.
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550922</id>
	<title>Re:diff needed</title>
	<author>Lakitu</author>
	<datestamp>1261757220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The 'your own fault for ever having helped them' adage is certainly drawing psychologically but doesn't really hold water. You might as well blame the Cold War on us helping the Soviets fight the Germans rather than any sort of clash of political and economic ideals.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's not entirely untrue.  One of the reasons communist China existed as it did was because of pressure from the US for the USSR to declare war on Japan, most likely to help mitigate American casualties in any invasion of the Japanese mainlands.  This pressure was also exerted to draw Soviet forces away from Europe, where there was a genuine fear about further war, after the Nazis fell, between the West and the Soviets.  In hindsight this war was not very likely, but there was a genuine, well-founded fear and distrust of Stalin.</p><p>This also probably served as an impetus for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both as a deterrent to the Russians, and as a way to end the war quicker, with a Japanese surrender to the USA, rather than letting the USSR grab up more territory.</p><p>The implications of the victory of communist forces over the nationalist Chinese is a lot more obvious, with the China/Taiwan split, communism on the Korean peninsula, etc.  Not to mention the authoritarian regime in China today is largely a spawn of the communist government.</p><p>You do have a good point -- it's not quite cause-and-effect, it is much more complicated.  That does not mean it's completely false.  There has been lots of meddling in foreign affairs by the USA post-WW2, or post-WW1, which had largely been confined to the Western hemisphere and parts of the Pacific prior to that.  There was certainly a great deal more isolationist feeling where people felt that goings on across the globe weren't quite their business, to the point where the political leadership of the USA had a very isolationist bent starting in the decades after the Revolution, declaring neutrality in any potential upcoming European wars.  Can you imagine what the world would be like if the USA had been formed as a 'European' power, getting involved in the wars of the 19th century, like the Napoleonic wars, or the Crimean war?</p><p>It seems we could benefit from a bit of that isolationist feeling, if it could be reciprocated.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The 'your own fault for ever having helped them ' adage is certainly drawing psychologically but does n't really hold water .
You might as well blame the Cold War on us helping the Soviets fight the Germans rather than any sort of clash of political and economic ideals.That 's not entirely untrue .
One of the reasons communist China existed as it did was because of pressure from the US for the USSR to declare war on Japan , most likely to help mitigate American casualties in any invasion of the Japanese mainlands .
This pressure was also exerted to draw Soviet forces away from Europe , where there was a genuine fear about further war , after the Nazis fell , between the West and the Soviets .
In hindsight this war was not very likely , but there was a genuine , well-founded fear and distrust of Stalin.This also probably served as an impetus for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki , both as a deterrent to the Russians , and as a way to end the war quicker , with a Japanese surrender to the USA , rather than letting the USSR grab up more territory.The implications of the victory of communist forces over the nationalist Chinese is a lot more obvious , with the China/Taiwan split , communism on the Korean peninsula , etc .
Not to mention the authoritarian regime in China today is largely a spawn of the communist government.You do have a good point -- it 's not quite cause-and-effect , it is much more complicated .
That does not mean it 's completely false .
There has been lots of meddling in foreign affairs by the USA post-WW2 , or post-WW1 , which had largely been confined to the Western hemisphere and parts of the Pacific prior to that .
There was certainly a great deal more isolationist feeling where people felt that goings on across the globe were n't quite their business , to the point where the political leadership of the USA had a very isolationist bent starting in the decades after the Revolution , declaring neutrality in any potential upcoming European wars .
Can you imagine what the world would be like if the USA had been formed as a 'European ' power , getting involved in the wars of the 19th century , like the Napoleonic wars , or the Crimean war ? It seems we could benefit from a bit of that isolationist feeling , if it could be reciprocated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 'your own fault for ever having helped them' adage is certainly drawing psychologically but doesn't really hold water.
You might as well blame the Cold War on us helping the Soviets fight the Germans rather than any sort of clash of political and economic ideals.That's not entirely untrue.
One of the reasons communist China existed as it did was because of pressure from the US for the USSR to declare war on Japan, most likely to help mitigate American casualties in any invasion of the Japanese mainlands.
This pressure was also exerted to draw Soviet forces away from Europe, where there was a genuine fear about further war, after the Nazis fell, between the West and the Soviets.
In hindsight this war was not very likely, but there was a genuine, well-founded fear and distrust of Stalin.This also probably served as an impetus for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both as a deterrent to the Russians, and as a way to end the war quicker, with a Japanese surrender to the USA, rather than letting the USSR grab up more territory.The implications of the victory of communist forces over the nationalist Chinese is a lot more obvious, with the China/Taiwan split, communism on the Korean peninsula, etc.
Not to mention the authoritarian regime in China today is largely a spawn of the communist government.You do have a good point -- it's not quite cause-and-effect, it is much more complicated.
That does not mean it's completely false.
There has been lots of meddling in foreign affairs by the USA post-WW2, or post-WW1, which had largely been confined to the Western hemisphere and parts of the Pacific prior to that.
There was certainly a great deal more isolationist feeling where people felt that goings on across the globe weren't quite their business, to the point where the political leadership of the USA had a very isolationist bent starting in the decades after the Revolution, declaring neutrality in any potential upcoming European wars.
Can you imagine what the world would be like if the USA had been formed as a 'European' power, getting involved in the wars of the 19th century, like the Napoleonic wars, or the Crimean war?It seems we could benefit from a bit of that isolationist feeling, if it could be reciprocated.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550592</id>
	<title>Re:diff needed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261751520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Must have missed the part where we betrayed the Mujaheddin to the Soviets as well as the part where any of those Afghani fighters were involved in the events of 9/11.  Unless by 'betrayed' you mean the war ended, most of the foreign fighters left Afghanistan, we were no longer needed so stopped training, and the groups of foreign fighters began to self-radicalize as only the more radical members interested in fighting foreign powers rather than defending Islamic lands remained while the rest went home.</p><p>The 'your own fault for ever having helped them' adage is certainly drawing psychologically but doesn't really hold water.  You might as well blame the Cold War on us helping the Soviets fight the Germans rather than any sort of clash of political and economic ideals. Or blame the German invasion of Russia solely on Russian's  steel trade with Germany up until the morning of rather than even note Hitler is doing anything wrong in wanting to take over the world.  And I suppose we fought the British solely because they trained us how to fight during the French and Indian war and like us should have had the decades of foresight to know they'd be better off not providing aid and letting their enemy take over those lands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Must have missed the part where we betrayed the Mujaheddin to the Soviets as well as the part where any of those Afghani fighters were involved in the events of 9/11 .
Unless by 'betrayed ' you mean the war ended , most of the foreign fighters left Afghanistan , we were no longer needed so stopped training , and the groups of foreign fighters began to self-radicalize as only the more radical members interested in fighting foreign powers rather than defending Islamic lands remained while the rest went home.The 'your own fault for ever having helped them ' adage is certainly drawing psychologically but does n't really hold water .
You might as well blame the Cold War on us helping the Soviets fight the Germans rather than any sort of clash of political and economic ideals .
Or blame the German invasion of Russia solely on Russian 's steel trade with Germany up until the morning of rather than even note Hitler is doing anything wrong in wanting to take over the world .
And I suppose we fought the British solely because they trained us how to fight during the French and Indian war and like us should have had the decades of foresight to know they 'd be better off not providing aid and letting their enemy take over those lands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Must have missed the part where we betrayed the Mujaheddin to the Soviets as well as the part where any of those Afghani fighters were involved in the events of 9/11.
Unless by 'betrayed' you mean the war ended, most of the foreign fighters left Afghanistan, we were no longer needed so stopped training, and the groups of foreign fighters began to self-radicalize as only the more radical members interested in fighting foreign powers rather than defending Islamic lands remained while the rest went home.The 'your own fault for ever having helped them' adage is certainly drawing psychologically but doesn't really hold water.
You might as well blame the Cold War on us helping the Soviets fight the Germans rather than any sort of clash of political and economic ideals.
Or blame the German invasion of Russia solely on Russian's  steel trade with Germany up until the morning of rather than even note Hitler is doing anything wrong in wanting to take over the world.
And I suppose we fought the British solely because they trained us how to fight during the French and Indian war and like us should have had the decades of foresight to know they'd be better off not providing aid and letting their enemy take over those lands.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30552266</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261774440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the pictures on this article were not what I have grown to expect from playboy...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the pictures on this article were not what I have grown to expect from playboy.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the pictures on this article were not what I have grown to expect from playboy...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550600</id>
	<title>Pro-Terrorism software</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1261751580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>That software, coupled with the (ok, Hanlon should be right) stupidity of the ones believing in this software was right and acting according should be punished. They were doing the work of terrorists, spreading panic between people.<br><br>In the other hand, should be a lesson to government between the difference of open and closed source. Snake oil is harder to sell if you can peek at the formula.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That software , coupled with the ( ok , Hanlon should be right ) stupidity of the ones believing in this software was right and acting according should be punished .
They were doing the work of terrorists , spreading panic between people.In the other hand , should be a lesson to government between the difference of open and closed source .
Snake oil is harder to sell if you can peek at the formula .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That software, coupled with the (ok, Hanlon should be right) stupidity of the ones believing in this software was right and acting according should be punished.
They were doing the work of terrorists, spreading panic between people.In the other hand, should be a lesson to government between the difference of open and closed source.
Snake oil is harder to sell if you can peek at the formula.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30552102</id>
	<title>Re:We proved him a fraud years back, no one listen</title>
	<author>nikwax</author>
	<datestamp>1261772280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Human irrationality has many well known forms - this is only one of them.</p><p>Stuart Sutherland's book Irrationality is a fascinating read and explains this sort of apparent craziness.</p><p>http://www.amazon.co.uk/Irrationality-Stuart-Sutherland/dp/1905177070</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Human irrationality has many well known forms - this is only one of them.Stuart Sutherland 's book Irrationality is a fascinating read and explains this sort of apparent craziness.http : //www.amazon.co.uk/Irrationality-Stuart-Sutherland/dp/1905177070</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Human irrationality has many well known forms - this is only one of them.Stuart Sutherland's book Irrationality is a fascinating read and explains this sort of apparent craziness.http://www.amazon.co.uk/Irrationality-Stuart-Sutherland/dp/1905177070</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550838</id>
	<title>Re:diff needed</title>
	<author>zach\_the\_lizard</author>
	<datestamp>1261756200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <em>stop training terrorists and betraying them</em>.</p></div><p>It's not just that. These people are also enraged at what they see as US imperialism in the Middle East. With all the invasions and troops deployed to the region, and all the coups, it is a wonder to me that the US isn't constantly being bombed by disaffected people of all stripes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>stop training terrorists and betraying them.It 's not just that .
These people are also enraged at what they see as US imperialism in the Middle East .
With all the invasions and troops deployed to the region , and all the coups , it is a wonder to me that the US is n't constantly being bombed by disaffected people of all stripes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> stop training terrorists and betraying them.It's not just that.
These people are also enraged at what they see as US imperialism in the Middle East.
With all the invasions and troops deployed to the region, and all the coups, it is a wonder to me that the US isn't constantly being bombed by disaffected people of all stripes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30551496</id>
	<title>dumb ass...</title>
	<author>martiniturbide</author>
	<datestamp>1261764360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Montgomery looked up at Bauder and told him it was okay. They would communicate via an open cell phone line. He told Bauder to listen to the phone. &ldquo;&lsquo;When you hear the tone, I want you to hit the space bar on the keyboard.&rsquo;&rdquo; Bauder, in other words, would be secretly communicating with Montgomery"

Dumb ass... Montgomery should make program to automaticaly press the space key when he hitted his cell phone number. With that he would have a witnessa against him.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Montgomery looked up at Bauder and told him it was okay .
They would communicate via an open cell phone line .
He told Bauder to listen to the phone .
      When you hear the tone , I want you to hit the space bar on the keyboard.       Bauder , in other words , would be secretly communicating with Montgomery " Dumb ass... Montgomery should make program to automaticaly press the space key when he hitted his cell phone number .
With that he would have a witnessa against him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Montgomery looked up at Bauder and told him it was okay.
They would communicate via an open cell phone line.
He told Bauder to listen to the phone.
“‘When you hear the tone, I want you to hit the space bar on the keyboard.’” Bauder, in other words, would be secretly communicating with Montgomery"

Dumb ass... Montgomery should make program to automaticaly press the space key when he hitted his cell phone number.
With that he would have a witnessa against him.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30551576</id>
	<title>"All of which, it seems, was hokum"</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1261765380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, that's the "War On Terror" alright.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , that 's the " War On Terror " alright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, that's the "War On Terror" alright.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550832</id>
	<title>Re:Suprise surprise...</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1261756020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The person who knowingly sells parts or software or equipment to the government is attempting sabotage. We need to return to the quite legal custom of executing saboteurs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The person who knowingly sells parts or software or equipment to the government is attempting sabotage .
We need to return to the quite legal custom of executing saboteurs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The person who knowingly sells parts or software or equipment to the government is attempting sabotage.
We need to return to the quite legal custom of executing saboteurs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550668</id>
	<title>The easiest way to stop terrorism:</title>
	<author>Ralph Spoilsport</author>
	<datestamp>1261753140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Renounce Empire.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Renounce Empire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Renounce Empire.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30554506</id>
	<title>Re:We proved him a fraud years back, no one listen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261769700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how do you cheat with compression. Either it compresses or it doesn't. If it doesn't decompress then you know it doesn't work.</p><p>Now maybe if he indicated that it was lossless compression and it was actually lossy, that would be a different matter, but it shouldn't take all that much to figure that out, definitely not clever work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how do you cheat with compression .
Either it compresses or it does n't .
If it does n't decompress then you know it does n't work.Now maybe if he indicated that it was lossless compression and it was actually lossy , that would be a different matter , but it should n't take all that much to figure that out , definitely not clever work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how do you cheat with compression.
Either it compresses or it doesn't.
If it doesn't decompress then you know it doesn't work.Now maybe if he indicated that it was lossless compression and it was actually lossy, that would be a different matter, but it shouldn't take all that much to figure that out, definitely not clever work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550658</id>
	<title>Re:Deluisional idiot or con man?</title>
	<author>rastilin</author>
	<datestamp>1261752900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>He told Bauder to listen to the phone. "'When you hear the tone, I want you to hit the space bar on the keyboard.'" Bauder, in other words, would be secretly communicating with Montgomery while the military guys watched the supposed software demo on another computer.</p></div><p>...and at the time, he seriously didn't find it the least bit suspicious? This stretches credibility, either they're all huge idiots, or they were playing along while the going was good.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He told Bauder to listen to the phone .
" 'When you hear the tone , I want you to hit the space bar on the keyboard .
' " Bauder , in other words , would be secretly communicating with Montgomery while the military guys watched the supposed software demo on another computer....and at the time , he seriously did n't find it the least bit suspicious ?
This stretches credibility , either they 're all huge idiots , or they were playing along while the going was good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He told Bauder to listen to the phone.
"'When you hear the tone, I want you to hit the space bar on the keyboard.
'" Bauder, in other words, would be secretly communicating with Montgomery while the military guys watched the supposed software demo on another computer....and at the time, he seriously didn't find it the least bit suspicious?
This stretches credibility, either they're all huge idiots, or they were playing along while the going was good.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550580</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, what?</title>
	<author>rvw</author>
	<datestamp>1261751160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Playboy article? I guess the real news here is that someone actually reads playboy for the articles. Who knew?</p></div><p>Naked girls, software, terrorists, fraud - enough to make a nerd reach new emotional heights.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Playboy article ?
I guess the real news here is that someone actually reads playboy for the articles .
Who knew ? Naked girls , software , terrorists , fraud - enough to make a nerd reach new emotional heights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Playboy article?
I guess the real news here is that someone actually reads playboy for the articles.
Who knew?Naked girls, software, terrorists, fraud - enough to make a nerd reach new emotional heights.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550986</id>
	<title>you aint seen nothing yet</title>
	<author>daveb1</author>
	<datestamp>1261758360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>you aint seen nothing yet. There is this site called 4chan and the users are posting hidden messages in pictures.
Some are harmless others<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..... well i won't speculate here in a public place<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</htmltext>
<tokenext>you aint seen nothing yet .
There is this site called 4chan and the users are posting hidden messages in pictures .
Some are harmless others ..... well i wo n't speculate here in a public place : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you aint seen nothing yet.
There is this site called 4chan and the users are posting hidden messages in pictures.
Some are harmless others ..... well i won't speculate here in a public place :P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30551270</id>
	<title>Nice strawman.</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1261762140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Comparing our voluntary invasion of sovereign nations to WWII and the Revolutionary War is completely ridiculous. Afghanistan's government <b>requested</b> Soviet military support to quell the fundamentalist Islamo-Fascists from overthrowing their secular Marxist government. We decided to punish the CCCP by "giving them their own Vietnam." We gathered every crazy Islamic fundamentalist we could lay our hands on, trained them, and showed that it was possible to defeat a world superpower. We poured billions of dollars of weapons into the country, and Russia poured billions in, and we had a proxy war that completely destroyed Afghanistan, and killed possibly millions of people. Then, as soon as the Russians left, refused to give a dime to build anything.</p><p>If it was just limited to Afghanistan, I could say it was an honest, one time mistake. However, we have invaded and overthrown so many democratic governments that it's almost a farce at this point to claim that we support freedom. It's obvious that we support whatever entity follows our orders. The only thing that will make the US care about your freedom is if you have some resource under your feet and a governent that is not playing ball.</p><p>And here's the amazing part about your post:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And I suppose we fought the British solely because they trained us how to fight during the French and Indian war and like us should have had the decades of foresight to know they'd be better off not providing aid and letting their enemy take over those lands.</p></div><p>Now, who decided that Britain's imperial claim to whatever they wanted was moral? Because if all you need to justify taking the lives of foreign nationals is the desire to have their stuff, then apparently you do not subscribe to any sort of value system, other than might makes right.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Comparing our voluntary invasion of sovereign nations to WWII and the Revolutionary War is completely ridiculous .
Afghanistan 's government requested Soviet military support to quell the fundamentalist Islamo-Fascists from overthrowing their secular Marxist government .
We decided to punish the CCCP by " giving them their own Vietnam .
" We gathered every crazy Islamic fundamentalist we could lay our hands on , trained them , and showed that it was possible to defeat a world superpower .
We poured billions of dollars of weapons into the country , and Russia poured billions in , and we had a proxy war that completely destroyed Afghanistan , and killed possibly millions of people .
Then , as soon as the Russians left , refused to give a dime to build anything.If it was just limited to Afghanistan , I could say it was an honest , one time mistake .
However , we have invaded and overthrown so many democratic governments that it 's almost a farce at this point to claim that we support freedom .
It 's obvious that we support whatever entity follows our orders .
The only thing that will make the US care about your freedom is if you have some resource under your feet and a governent that is not playing ball.And here 's the amazing part about your post : And I suppose we fought the British solely because they trained us how to fight during the French and Indian war and like us should have had the decades of foresight to know they 'd be better off not providing aid and letting their enemy take over those lands.Now , who decided that Britain 's imperial claim to whatever they wanted was moral ?
Because if all you need to justify taking the lives of foreign nationals is the desire to have their stuff , then apparently you do not subscribe to any sort of value system , other than might makes right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Comparing our voluntary invasion of sovereign nations to WWII and the Revolutionary War is completely ridiculous.
Afghanistan's government requested Soviet military support to quell the fundamentalist Islamo-Fascists from overthrowing their secular Marxist government.
We decided to punish the CCCP by "giving them their own Vietnam.
" We gathered every crazy Islamic fundamentalist we could lay our hands on, trained them, and showed that it was possible to defeat a world superpower.
We poured billions of dollars of weapons into the country, and Russia poured billions in, and we had a proxy war that completely destroyed Afghanistan, and killed possibly millions of people.
Then, as soon as the Russians left, refused to give a dime to build anything.If it was just limited to Afghanistan, I could say it was an honest, one time mistake.
However, we have invaded and overthrown so many democratic governments that it's almost a farce at this point to claim that we support freedom.
It's obvious that we support whatever entity follows our orders.
The only thing that will make the US care about your freedom is if you have some resource under your feet and a governent that is not playing ball.And here's the amazing part about your post:And I suppose we fought the British solely because they trained us how to fight during the French and Indian war and like us should have had the decades of foresight to know they'd be better off not providing aid and letting their enemy take over those lands.Now, who decided that Britain's imperial claim to whatever they wanted was moral?
Because if all you need to justify taking the lives of foreign nationals is the desire to have their stuff, then apparently you do not subscribe to any sort of value system, other than might makes right.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30551052</id>
	<title>Re:diff needed</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1261759560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The reality is that there is one and only one way to combat terrorism against the US: <em>stop training terrorists and betraying them.</em></p> </div><p>Bzzzzt!</p><p>The only way to effectively combat terrorism is to stop freaking the fuck out.  By definition terrorists want to create terror.  So stop over-reacting.  Stop treating terrorism as some special evil that is a force unto itself worthy of endless news coverage and the constant ratcheting up of 'safety' rules.  Live our lives as the free and the brave, not pathetic slaves to fear.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reality is that there is one and only one way to combat terrorism against the US : stop training terrorists and betraying them .
Bzzzzt ! The only way to effectively combat terrorism is to stop freaking the fuck out .
By definition terrorists want to create terror .
So stop over-reacting .
Stop treating terrorism as some special evil that is a force unto itself worthy of endless news coverage and the constant ratcheting up of 'safety ' rules .
Live our lives as the free and the brave , not pathetic slaves to fear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reality is that there is one and only one way to combat terrorism against the US: stop training terrorists and betraying them.
Bzzzzt!The only way to effectively combat terrorism is to stop freaking the fuck out.
By definition terrorists want to create terror.
So stop over-reacting.
Stop treating terrorism as some special evil that is a force unto itself worthy of endless news coverage and the constant ratcheting up of 'safety' rules.
Live our lives as the free and the brave, not pathetic slaves to fear.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550510</id>
	<title>This just shows how broken it all is</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1261749480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If one guy can pull this kind of stuff off, imagine what would happen if he "tipped" some of his worst enemies to them. And to the terrorist prison camps they go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If one guy can pull this kind of stuff off , imagine what would happen if he " tipped " some of his worst enemies to them .
And to the terrorist prison camps they go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If one guy can pull this kind of stuff off, imagine what would happen if he "tipped" some of his worst enemies to them.
And to the terrorist prison camps they go.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30551988</id>
	<title>Just goes to demonstrate ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261770840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that the U.S. C.I.A. is the United States Central Idiot Agency.</p><p>They should have the actor who's puppet channelled Jerry Lewis's "Nutty Professor" in Speilberg's movie "1941" as their Director.</p><p>Yuk Yuk Yuk.</p><p>How about "Gen. Buck Turgidson" from Dr. Strangelov who was played by George C. Scott, as the C.I.A.'s Chief Scientist.  In this way, "Climate Change" becomes Emergency Attack Plan R, and Obama channels the character Gen. Jack Ripper, also from Dr. Strangelove, and turns Hawaii in the Burpelson Air Force Base, where he dutifully awaits retalliation from the French/Brits/Ruskies/IPCC while preserving our vital body fluids.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that the U.S. C.I.A. is the United States Central Idiot Agency.They should have the actor who 's puppet channelled Jerry Lewis 's " Nutty Professor " in Speilberg 's movie " 1941 " as their Director.Yuk Yuk Yuk.How about " Gen. Buck Turgidson " from Dr. Strangelov who was played by George C. Scott , as the C.I.A .
's Chief Scientist .
In this way , " Climate Change " becomes Emergency Attack Plan R , and Obama channels the character Gen. Jack Ripper , also from Dr. Strangelove , and turns Hawaii in the Burpelson Air Force Base , where he dutifully awaits retalliation from the French/Brits/Ruskies/IPCC while preserving our vital body fluids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that the U.S. C.I.A. is the United States Central Idiot Agency.They should have the actor who's puppet channelled Jerry Lewis's "Nutty Professor" in Speilberg's movie "1941" as their Director.Yuk Yuk Yuk.How about "Gen. Buck Turgidson" from Dr. Strangelov who was played by George C. Scott, as the C.I.A.
's Chief Scientist.
In this way, "Climate Change" becomes Emergency Attack Plan R, and Obama channels the character Gen. Jack Ripper, also from Dr. Strangelove, and turns Hawaii in the Burpelson Air Force Base, where he dutifully awaits retalliation from the French/Brits/Ruskies/IPCC while preserving our vital body fluids.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550518</id>
	<title>diff needed</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1261749660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Frances Townsend, a homeland security adviser to Bush, said she did not regret having relied on Montgomery's mysterious intelligence. "It didn't seem beyond the realm of possibility. We were relying on technical people to tell us whether or not it was feasible," she said.</p></div><p>"It didn't seem beyond the realm of possibility. We were relying on shit like this to maintain the illusion that we are doing something to combat terrorism. When he asked to close the museum of modern art, we were overjoyed. Talk about high-profile!"</p><p>The reality is that there is one and only one way to combat terrorism against the US: <em>stop training terrorists and betraying them</em>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Frances Townsend , a homeland security adviser to Bush , said she did not regret having relied on Montgomery 's mysterious intelligence .
" It did n't seem beyond the realm of possibility .
We were relying on technical people to tell us whether or not it was feasible , " she said .
" It did n't seem beyond the realm of possibility .
We were relying on shit like this to maintain the illusion that we are doing something to combat terrorism .
When he asked to close the museum of modern art , we were overjoyed .
Talk about high-profile !
" The reality is that there is one and only one way to combat terrorism against the US : stop training terrorists and betraying them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frances Townsend, a homeland security adviser to Bush, said she did not regret having relied on Montgomery's mysterious intelligence.
"It didn't seem beyond the realm of possibility.
We were relying on technical people to tell us whether or not it was feasible," she said.
"It didn't seem beyond the realm of possibility.
We were relying on shit like this to maintain the illusion that we are doing something to combat terrorism.
When he asked to close the museum of modern art, we were overjoyed.
Talk about high-profile!
"The reality is that there is one and only one way to combat terrorism against the US: stop training terrorists and betraying them.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30551954</id>
	<title>Says Montgomery now?</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1261770420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time...."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... as he sits in a dark jail cell somewhere waiting to be convicted of treason.  We hope.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Well , it seemed like a good idea at the time.... " ... as he sits in a dark jail cell somewhere waiting to be convicted of treason .
We hope .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time...." ... as he sits in a dark jail cell somewhere waiting to be convicted of treason.
We hope.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550858</id>
	<title>Re:This just shows how broken it all is</title>
	<author>houghi</author>
	<datestamp>1261756440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And you are sure this did not happen? And you are sure that he was the only person giving information to the CIA?<br>People ratted out others in Afghanistan and Iraq for money. The fact that those people were innocent did not stop them from getting the money and the people being deported.<br>Don't forget, everybody is guilty by association.</p><p>It is "6 degrees of Kevin Bacon". That is one random person. That means you will be 6 degrees away from a terrorist. The difference is that all people in the 5th degree will become a terrorist as well. Now you are only 5 degrees away. Obviously people in the 4th degree are all terrorists, as they have contact with terrorists.<br>So now you are only [some steps snipped] You are the enemy.</p><p>No matter ho many degrees you are away from a terrorist, you will be someone to be watched as you have links with terrorism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And you are sure this did not happen ?
And you are sure that he was the only person giving information to the CIA ? People ratted out others in Afghanistan and Iraq for money .
The fact that those people were innocent did not stop them from getting the money and the people being deported.Do n't forget , everybody is guilty by association.It is " 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon " .
That is one random person .
That means you will be 6 degrees away from a terrorist .
The difference is that all people in the 5th degree will become a terrorist as well .
Now you are only 5 degrees away .
Obviously people in the 4th degree are all terrorists , as they have contact with terrorists.So now you are only [ some steps snipped ] You are the enemy.No matter ho many degrees you are away from a terrorist , you will be someone to be watched as you have links with terrorism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you are sure this did not happen?
And you are sure that he was the only person giving information to the CIA?People ratted out others in Afghanistan and Iraq for money.
The fact that those people were innocent did not stop them from getting the money and the people being deported.Don't forget, everybody is guilty by association.It is "6 degrees of Kevin Bacon".
That is one random person.
That means you will be 6 degrees away from a terrorist.
The difference is that all people in the 5th degree will become a terrorist as well.
Now you are only 5 degrees away.
Obviously people in the 4th degree are all terrorists, as they have contact with terrorists.So now you are only [some steps snipped] You are the enemy.No matter ho many degrees you are away from a terrorist, you will be someone to be watched as you have links with terrorism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30551630</id>
	<title>Re:Deluisional idiot or con man?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261766040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>...he will probably get away with this, because the government can not publicly prosecute him without looking like an Idiot.</p></div></blockquote><p>If the government forestalled action to avoid looking like an idiot, they'd never do anything.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...he will probably get away with this , because the government can not publicly prosecute him without looking like an Idiot.If the government forestalled action to avoid looking like an idiot , they 'd never do anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...he will probably get away with this, because the government can not publicly prosecute him without looking like an Idiot.If the government forestalled action to avoid looking like an idiot, they'd never do anything.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30551608</id>
	<title>Re:This just shows how broken it all is</title>
	<author>Mikkeles</author>
	<datestamp>1261765920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You people really have got a bunch of looney tunes in charge, don't you?  Our leaders don't hold a candle to yours!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You people really have got a bunch of looney tunes in charge , do n't you ?
Our leaders do n't hold a candle to yours !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You people really have got a bunch of looney tunes in charge, don't you?
Our leaders don't hold a candle to yours!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550742</id>
	<title>Re:This just shows how broken it all is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261754520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I never understood why Bush planed  to bomb AlJazerea until now.<br>In case you missed it: Bush planed to bomb the TV station in an allied country until GB Premier Blair stopped him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never understood why Bush planed to bomb AlJazerea until now.In case you missed it : Bush planed to bomb the TV station in an allied country until GB Premier Blair stopped him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never understood why Bush planed  to bomb AlJazerea until now.In case you missed it: Bush planed to bomb the TV station in an allied country until GB Premier Blair stopped him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30551288</id>
	<title>Playboy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261762380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And of course everyone buys that magazine because of articles like this. Hmm<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and of course *everyone* reads the articles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And of course everyone buys that magazine because of articles like this .
Hmm ... and of course * everyone * reads the articles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And of course everyone buys that magazine because of articles like this.
Hmm ... and of course *everyone* reads the articles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30551064</id>
	<title>articles?</title>
	<author>binaryseraph</author>
	<datestamp>1261759860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Playboy has articles?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Playboy has articles ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Playboy has articles?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550914</id>
	<title>We proved him a fraud years back, no one listened</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261757160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I worked for a Very Large Company looking to buy image compression software from this dude many years back.  A co-worker did some extremely clever testing of the compression software that proved conclusively that the compression algorithms were cheating, and that it was intentional fraud.  Upper management still wanted to believe the cheater and not our own internal debunking.  Amazing how non-objective people can be, even (or especially) managers of scientists and engineers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I worked for a Very Large Company looking to buy image compression software from this dude many years back .
A co-worker did some extremely clever testing of the compression software that proved conclusively that the compression algorithms were cheating , and that it was intentional fraud .
Upper management still wanted to believe the cheater and not our own internal debunking .
Amazing how non-objective people can be , even ( or especially ) managers of scientists and engineers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I worked for a Very Large Company looking to buy image compression software from this dude many years back.
A co-worker did some extremely clever testing of the compression software that proved conclusively that the compression algorithms were cheating, and that it was intentional fraud.
Upper management still wanted to believe the cheater and not our own internal debunking.
Amazing how non-objective people can be, even (or especially) managers of scientists and engineers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550962</id>
	<title>Re:Flights</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261757700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>&ldquo;What were we going to do and how would we screen people? If we weren&rsquo;t comfortable we wouldn&rsquo;t let a flight take off.&rdquo;</p></div><p>Why are they still following flights and such so closely, while leaving all the other ways open? It wouldn't have the same effect this time, because terrorists just go for emotions of people to get their message out.</p><p>Seems like hysterical thinking for me.</p></div><p>Totally agree. I took Amtrak recently and I was *shocked* that there was absolutely no baggage screening or even a metal detector I had to go through to board the train--you just show up with your bags and walk in without any security, ID checks, or bag checks whatsoever.  They don't even check for your ticket until about a half hour into the train ride.  Sure, airport security sucks, but the last couple of major terrorist attacks in Europe were on trains and we still don't care about trains?  This convinced me that the security circus crowd is correct...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>   What were we going to do and how would we screen people ?
If we weren    t comfortable we wouldn    t let a flight take off.    Why are they still following flights and such so closely , while leaving all the other ways open ?
It would n't have the same effect this time , because terrorists just go for emotions of people to get their message out.Seems like hysterical thinking for me.Totally agree .
I took Amtrak recently and I was * shocked * that there was absolutely no baggage screening or even a metal detector I had to go through to board the train--you just show up with your bags and walk in without any security , ID checks , or bag checks whatsoever .
They do n't even check for your ticket until about a half hour into the train ride .
Sure , airport security sucks , but the last couple of major terrorist attacks in Europe were on trains and we still do n't care about trains ?
This convinced me that the security circus crowd is correct.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>“What were we going to do and how would we screen people?
If we weren’t comfortable we wouldn’t let a flight take off.”Why are they still following flights and such so closely, while leaving all the other ways open?
It wouldn't have the same effect this time, because terrorists just go for emotions of people to get their message out.Seems like hysterical thinking for me.Totally agree.
I took Amtrak recently and I was *shocked* that there was absolutely no baggage screening or even a metal detector I had to go through to board the train--you just show up with your bags and walk in without any security, ID checks, or bag checks whatsoever.
They don't even check for your ticket until about a half hour into the train ride.
Sure, airport security sucks, but the last couple of major terrorist attacks in Europe were on trains and we still don't care about trains?
This convinced me that the security circus crowd is correct...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30551426</id>
	<title>Re:This just shows how broken it all is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261763640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a story that gets brought up occasionally. Many Afghans were picked up, but unless there was more to go on than what an informant said they were released. Foreigners were treated differently, and of course there are always two sides to every story. For example Hukumra Khan has claimed all along that we was just a simple laborer who refused to pay an Afghan soldier a bribe:</p><p>"They send me only because I didn&rsquo;t give the money. I&rsquo;m a labor worker, I didn&rsquo;t do anything wrong. I&rsquo;m not Taliban and I&rsquo;m not al-Qaeda".</p><p>Yet when they searched his home they found 3 AK-47s and a satellite phone that he owned had been used to make calls to known Taliban. Who do you believe?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a story that gets brought up occasionally .
Many Afghans were picked up , but unless there was more to go on than what an informant said they were released .
Foreigners were treated differently , and of course there are always two sides to every story .
For example Hukumra Khan has claimed all along that we was just a simple laborer who refused to pay an Afghan soldier a bribe : " They send me only because I didn    t give the money .
I    m a labor worker , I didn    t do anything wrong .
I    m not Taliban and I    m not al-Qaeda " .Yet when they searched his home they found 3 AK-47s and a satellite phone that he owned had been used to make calls to known Taliban .
Who do you believe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a story that gets brought up occasionally.
Many Afghans were picked up, but unless there was more to go on than what an informant said they were released.
Foreigners were treated differently, and of course there are always two sides to every story.
For example Hukumra Khan has claimed all along that we was just a simple laborer who refused to pay an Afghan soldier a bribe:"They send me only because I didn’t give the money.
I’m a labor worker, I didn’t do anything wrong.
I’m not Taliban and I’m not al-Qaeda".Yet when they searched his home they found 3 AK-47s and a satellite phone that he owned had been used to make calls to known Taliban.
Who do you believe?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550588</id>
	<title>Deluisional idiot or con man?</title>
	<author>walmass</author>
	<datestamp>1261751460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The author was on NPR <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121667905" title="npr.org">a few days ago [transcript and audio]</a> [npr.org], in case you won't visit PlayBoy or get distracted once you get there<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)
<br> <br>
Here came someone with a magic box who provided an easy solution, and the eggheads and their political masters bought it hook, line and sinker. What I find extraordinary is that the NSA was not involved or asked to vet this guy's findings. Billions of dollars and some of the finest brains working there, and no one thought to call them? Looks like even in 2003 inter-agency cooperation wasn't going very well.He was CIAs asset, and they were not going to share.
<br> <br>
My conclusion: con man, and he will probably get away with this, because the government can not publicly prosecute him without looking like an Idiot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The author was on NPR a few days ago [ transcript and audio ] [ npr.org ] , in case you wo n't visit PlayBoy or get distracted once you get there : - ) Here came someone with a magic box who provided an easy solution , and the eggheads and their political masters bought it hook , line and sinker .
What I find extraordinary is that the NSA was not involved or asked to vet this guy 's findings .
Billions of dollars and some of the finest brains working there , and no one thought to call them ?
Looks like even in 2003 inter-agency cooperation was n't going very well.He was CIAs asset , and they were not going to share .
My conclusion : con man , and he will probably get away with this , because the government can not publicly prosecute him without looking like an Idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The author was on NPR a few days ago [transcript and audio] [npr.org], in case you won't visit PlayBoy or get distracted once you get there :-)
 
Here came someone with a magic box who provided an easy solution, and the eggheads and their political masters bought it hook, line and sinker.
What I find extraordinary is that the NSA was not involved or asked to vet this guy's findings.
Billions of dollars and some of the finest brains working there, and no one thought to call them?
Looks like even in 2003 inter-agency cooperation wasn't going very well.He was CIAs asset, and they were not going to share.
My conclusion: con man, and he will probably get away with this, because the government can not publicly prosecute him without looking like an Idiot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30567688</id>
	<title>Likewise</title>
	<author>kevinNCSU</author>
	<datestamp>1261927440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yea, I don't know why those crazy fundamentalists would want to replace that lovely secular government that was in bed with Russia that executed around 27,000 people while attempting to implement their "modern" Marxist reforms.  And after all, Russia was just there at this government's request to protect them from their own people, even if part of this protection involved having Spetsnaz forces assassinate the president of Afghanistan because he seemed like he couldn't be trusted.  All under the "Treaty of Friendship" of course.  Cause you know, go ahead and assassinate our leader if you don't trust them is a common provision in such treaties.</p><p>So we gave afghan fighters the ability to take their country back from a foreign power and then at the end of it our supposedly heinous crime is letting them alone to run their own country as they see fit rather then substituting our power and influence for Russia's?  If that's your big complaint then you must have been ecstatic that we went back in and are now staying there and funding rebuilding.</p><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>And I suppose we fought the British solely because they trained us how to fight during the French and Indian war and like us should have had the decades of foresight to know they'd be better off not providing aid and letting their enemy take over those lands.</p></div><p>Now, who decided that Britain's imperial claim to whatever they wanted was moral? Because if all you need to justify taking the lives of foreign nationals is the desire to have their stuff, then apparently you do not subscribe to any sort of value system, other than might makes right.</p></div><p>
Ummmm...I'm not aware that anyone did, let alone I.  I mean, did you honestly read that single sentence about the ridiculous foresight it would take to see the Revolution during the French and Indian Wars and somehow glean a position on my entire value system and my perception on the morality of the actions of the British Empire?   Or are you just making up an untrue position, saying I subscribe to it, and then arguing against it to discredit me, which is an <b>actual</b> strawman, unlike simply pointing out apt historical examples whose frequency show that any time you help someone militarily at one point it's likely to come back to you at another and it's ludicrous to expect the foresight to ignore a current danger and not help a supposed ally in the fear that they may one day turn against you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea , I do n't know why those crazy fundamentalists would want to replace that lovely secular government that was in bed with Russia that executed around 27,000 people while attempting to implement their " modern " Marxist reforms .
And after all , Russia was just there at this government 's request to protect them from their own people , even if part of this protection involved having Spetsnaz forces assassinate the president of Afghanistan because he seemed like he could n't be trusted .
All under the " Treaty of Friendship " of course .
Cause you know , go ahead and assassinate our leader if you do n't trust them is a common provision in such treaties.So we gave afghan fighters the ability to take their country back from a foreign power and then at the end of it our supposedly heinous crime is letting them alone to run their own country as they see fit rather then substituting our power and influence for Russia 's ?
If that 's your big complaint then you must have been ecstatic that we went back in and are now staying there and funding rebuilding.And I suppose we fought the British solely because they trained us how to fight during the French and Indian war and like us should have had the decades of foresight to know they 'd be better off not providing aid and letting their enemy take over those lands.Now , who decided that Britain 's imperial claim to whatever they wanted was moral ?
Because if all you need to justify taking the lives of foreign nationals is the desire to have their stuff , then apparently you do not subscribe to any sort of value system , other than might makes right .
Ummmm...I 'm not aware that anyone did , let alone I. I mean , did you honestly read that single sentence about the ridiculous foresight it would take to see the Revolution during the French and Indian Wars and somehow glean a position on my entire value system and my perception on the morality of the actions of the British Empire ?
Or are you just making up an untrue position , saying I subscribe to it , and then arguing against it to discredit me , which is an actual strawman , unlike simply pointing out apt historical examples whose frequency show that any time you help someone militarily at one point it 's likely to come back to you at another and it 's ludicrous to expect the foresight to ignore a current danger and not help a supposed ally in the fear that they may one day turn against you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea, I don't know why those crazy fundamentalists would want to replace that lovely secular government that was in bed with Russia that executed around 27,000 people while attempting to implement their "modern" Marxist reforms.
And after all, Russia was just there at this government's request to protect them from their own people, even if part of this protection involved having Spetsnaz forces assassinate the president of Afghanistan because he seemed like he couldn't be trusted.
All under the "Treaty of Friendship" of course.
Cause you know, go ahead and assassinate our leader if you don't trust them is a common provision in such treaties.So we gave afghan fighters the ability to take their country back from a foreign power and then at the end of it our supposedly heinous crime is letting them alone to run their own country as they see fit rather then substituting our power and influence for Russia's?
If that's your big complaint then you must have been ecstatic that we went back in and are now staying there and funding rebuilding.And I suppose we fought the British solely because they trained us how to fight during the French and Indian war and like us should have had the decades of foresight to know they'd be better off not providing aid and letting their enemy take over those lands.Now, who decided that Britain's imperial claim to whatever they wanted was moral?
Because if all you need to justify taking the lives of foreign nationals is the desire to have their stuff, then apparently you do not subscribe to any sort of value system, other than might makes right.
Ummmm...I'm not aware that anyone did, let alone I.  I mean, did you honestly read that single sentence about the ridiculous foresight it would take to see the Revolution during the French and Indian Wars and somehow glean a position on my entire value system and my perception on the morality of the actions of the British Empire?
Or are you just making up an untrue position, saying I subscribe to it, and then arguing against it to discredit me, which is an actual strawman, unlike simply pointing out apt historical examples whose frequency show that any time you help someone militarily at one point it's likely to come back to you at another and it's ludicrous to expect the foresight to ignore a current danger and not help a supposed ally in the fear that they may one day turn against you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30551270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30553136</id>
	<title>Re:Deluisional idiot or con man?</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1261744080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What I find extraordinary is that the NSA was not involved or asked to vet this guy's findings.</p></div></blockquote><p>Most likely they were and warned about it but were over-ruled by some horse judge with connections.<br>It's another symptom of the transformation to corrupt third world tinpot dictatorship that the Neocons were pushing as hard as they could.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I find extraordinary is that the NSA was not involved or asked to vet this guy 's findings.Most likely they were and warned about it but were over-ruled by some horse judge with connections.It 's another symptom of the transformation to corrupt third world tinpot dictatorship that the Neocons were pushing as hard as they could .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I find extraordinary is that the NSA was not involved or asked to vet this guy's findings.Most likely they were and warned about it but were over-ruled by some horse judge with connections.It's another symptom of the transformation to corrupt third world tinpot dictatorship that the Neocons were pushing as hard as they could.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550608</id>
	<title>Suprise surprise...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261751760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, who do you think will be prosecuted for this? The guy who told them this nonsense, or the CIA guy who payed him to produce the "intel" they wanted to hear?<br> <br>Along with the recently-revealed origin of the "45 minutes" claim here in the UK, this starts to paint a picture of the way the War on Terror is justified: agencies don't make stuff up: they pay some idiot to make stuff up, so that when questions are asked, blame can go to the idiot instead of the highly-trained people that somehow end up listening to idiots.<br> <br>This also shows how easy it is to fool most people by treating computers like magic. You can't say stuff came to you in a vision anymore, but claim that magic software told you and most people are too scared of technical stuff to think to hard about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , who do you think will be prosecuted for this ?
The guy who told them this nonsense , or the CIA guy who payed him to produce the " intel " they wanted to hear ?
Along with the recently-revealed origin of the " 45 minutes " claim here in the UK , this starts to paint a picture of the way the War on Terror is justified : agencies do n't make stuff up : they pay some idiot to make stuff up , so that when questions are asked , blame can go to the idiot instead of the highly-trained people that somehow end up listening to idiots .
This also shows how easy it is to fool most people by treating computers like magic .
You ca n't say stuff came to you in a vision anymore , but claim that magic software told you and most people are too scared of technical stuff to think to hard about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, who do you think will be prosecuted for this?
The guy who told them this nonsense, or the CIA guy who payed him to produce the "intel" they wanted to hear?
Along with the recently-revealed origin of the "45 minutes" claim here in the UK, this starts to paint a picture of the way the War on Terror is justified: agencies don't make stuff up: they pay some idiot to make stuff up, so that when questions are asked, blame can go to the idiot instead of the highly-trained people that somehow end up listening to idiots.
This also shows how easy it is to fool most people by treating computers like magic.
You can't say stuff came to you in a vision anymore, but claim that magic software told you and most people are too scared of technical stuff to think to hard about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30551184</id>
	<title>Re:Deluisional idiot or con man?</title>
	<author>rwyoder</author>
	<datestamp>1261761240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The author was on NPR a few days ago [transcript and audio], in case you won't visit PlayBoy or get distracted once you get there<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Here is also video of a Rachel Maddow interview with the author:
<a href="http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/maddow\_with\_roston\_on\_the\_incredible\_magic\_al\_jaze.php" title="talkingpointsmemo.com">http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/maddow\_with\_roston\_on\_the\_incredible\_magic\_al\_jaze.php</a> [talkingpointsmemo.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The author was on NPR a few days ago [ transcript and audio ] , in case you wo n't visit PlayBoy or get distracted once you get there : - ) Here is also video of a Rachel Maddow interview with the author : http : //tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/maddow \ _with \ _roston \ _on \ _the \ _incredible \ _magic \ _al \ _jaze.php [ talkingpointsmemo.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The author was on NPR a few days ago [transcript and audio], in case you won't visit PlayBoy or get distracted once you get there :-)


Here is also video of a Rachel Maddow interview with the author:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/maddow\_with\_roston\_on\_the\_incredible\_magic\_al\_jaze.php [talkingpointsmemo.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550994</id>
	<title>Re:The easiest way to stop terrorism:</title>
	<author>Duradin</author>
	<datestamp>1261758540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That'll be good to know for when we start taking colonies again. Until then it is tangental at best to the situation.</p><p>Things probably would have gone a lot smoother had the invasions been part of a plan to take those countries as colonies since you don't even have to pretend to play nice with the locals and their political schemes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 'll be good to know for when we start taking colonies again .
Until then it is tangental at best to the situation.Things probably would have gone a lot smoother had the invasions been part of a plan to take those countries as colonies since you do n't even have to pretend to play nice with the locals and their political schemes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That'll be good to know for when we start taking colonies again.
Until then it is tangental at best to the situation.Things probably would have gone a lot smoother had the invasions been part of a plan to take those countries as colonies since you don't even have to pretend to play nice with the locals and their political schemes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550870</id>
	<title>Re:diff needed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261756560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i agree with your first point, this whole "do something" disease has to stop. doing something just for the sake of doing something is never the right solution.</p><p>as for your other point. while i don't agree that we trained all the terrorists in the world today, i know we train people we shouldn't train and they will come back to haunt us.  however, i will not agree that we betrayed most of them and surely that is not why they want to blow themselves up. stop with this battered wife syndrome mentality of it's our fault, if we just didn't upset them they won't beat/kill us anymore. ridiculous!</p><p>take for instance Afghanistan. we "trained" them to fight the Soviets(biggest problem at the time). when the Soviets left, we used diplomacy and agreed with them to keep our hands off Afghanistan, there was no longer any Soviets in country for our new "allies" to fight.  leaving them to form their own country is not a betrayal. do you really want to argue that we should of went in and set up our form of government? we did the right thing and it came back to bite us in the ass. damned if we do, damed if we don't.  it's a little more complicated then, we upset some people 20 years ago and they are still trying to pay us back. if anything, diplomacy with our enemies(Soviets) led to this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i agree with your first point , this whole " do something " disease has to stop .
doing something just for the sake of doing something is never the right solution.as for your other point .
while i do n't agree that we trained all the terrorists in the world today , i know we train people we should n't train and they will come back to haunt us .
however , i will not agree that we betrayed most of them and surely that is not why they want to blow themselves up .
stop with this battered wife syndrome mentality of it 's our fault , if we just did n't upset them they wo n't beat/kill us anymore .
ridiculous ! take for instance Afghanistan .
we " trained " them to fight the Soviets ( biggest problem at the time ) .
when the Soviets left , we used diplomacy and agreed with them to keep our hands off Afghanistan , there was no longer any Soviets in country for our new " allies " to fight .
leaving them to form their own country is not a betrayal .
do you really want to argue that we should of went in and set up our form of government ?
we did the right thing and it came back to bite us in the ass .
damned if we do , damed if we do n't .
it 's a little more complicated then , we upset some people 20 years ago and they are still trying to pay us back .
if anything , diplomacy with our enemies ( Soviets ) led to this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i agree with your first point, this whole "do something" disease has to stop.
doing something just for the sake of doing something is never the right solution.as for your other point.
while i don't agree that we trained all the terrorists in the world today, i know we train people we shouldn't train and they will come back to haunt us.
however, i will not agree that we betrayed most of them and surely that is not why they want to blow themselves up.
stop with this battered wife syndrome mentality of it's our fault, if we just didn't upset them they won't beat/kill us anymore.
ridiculous!take for instance Afghanistan.
we "trained" them to fight the Soviets(biggest problem at the time).
when the Soviets left, we used diplomacy and agreed with them to keep our hands off Afghanistan, there was no longer any Soviets in country for our new "allies" to fight.
leaving them to form their own country is not a betrayal.
do you really want to argue that we should of went in and set up our form of government?
we did the right thing and it came back to bite us in the ass.
damned if we do, damed if we don't.
it's a little more complicated then, we upset some people 20 years ago and they are still trying to pay us back.
if anything, diplomacy with our enemies(Soviets) led to this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550738</id>
	<title>Re:diff needed</title>
	<author>jaypifer</author>
	<datestamp>1261754460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The reality is that there is one and only one way to combat terrorism against the US: <em>stop training terrorists and betraying them</em>.</p></div><p>Because that's what creates con men in Nevada!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reality is that there is one and only one way to combat terrorism against the US : stop training terrorists and betraying them.Because that 's what creates con men in Nevada !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reality is that there is one and only one way to combat terrorism against the US: stop training terrorists and betraying them.Because that's what creates con men in Nevada!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550706</id>
	<title>Re:Deluisional idiot or con man?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261753920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The explanation is right there in the poster on Mulder's wall.  People believe charlatans because <i>they want to believe</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The explanation is right there in the poster on Mulder 's wall .
People believe charlatans because they want to believe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The explanation is right there in the poster on Mulder's wall.
People believe charlatans because they want to believe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550804</id>
	<title>Re:This just shows how broken it all is</title>
	<author>Lakitu</author>
	<datestamp>1261755720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's pretty much exactly what happened to a few of the people who ended up at Guantanmo Bay -- rewards were offered for tips that led to the capture of terrorists or terrorist sympathizers in Afghanistan in ~2001-2002.  It worked great, as they began receiving a ton of tips from the formerly unhelpful local populace.  It seems fairly obvious now that a not insignificant amount of the tips were completely fabricated, indicating that people who were completely unrelated to any real sympathy for al'Qaeda, or perhaps people who were the target of grudges, were doing things that they were not doing, or wanted to do things that they did not want to do.</p><p>Nobody seemed to care very much, since it didn't involve US citizens, and since people had let fear control their lives and did not want to take any chances, no matter how remote they are.  Hey Sarge, Habib from Jalalabnotgonnaworkhereanymore says this derka farmer in a village 10 miles away hates America!  What are the chances Habib would lie to us?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's pretty much exactly what happened to a few of the people who ended up at Guantanmo Bay -- rewards were offered for tips that led to the capture of terrorists or terrorist sympathizers in Afghanistan in ~ 2001-2002 .
It worked great , as they began receiving a ton of tips from the formerly unhelpful local populace .
It seems fairly obvious now that a not insignificant amount of the tips were completely fabricated , indicating that people who were completely unrelated to any real sympathy for al'Qaeda , or perhaps people who were the target of grudges , were doing things that they were not doing , or wanted to do things that they did not want to do.Nobody seemed to care very much , since it did n't involve US citizens , and since people had let fear control their lives and did not want to take any chances , no matter how remote they are .
Hey Sarge , Habib from Jalalabnotgonnaworkhereanymore says this derka farmer in a village 10 miles away hates America !
What are the chances Habib would lie to us ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's pretty much exactly what happened to a few of the people who ended up at Guantanmo Bay -- rewards were offered for tips that led to the capture of terrorists or terrorist sympathizers in Afghanistan in ~2001-2002.
It worked great, as they began receiving a ton of tips from the formerly unhelpful local populace.
It seems fairly obvious now that a not insignificant amount of the tips were completely fabricated, indicating that people who were completely unrelated to any real sympathy for al'Qaeda, or perhaps people who were the target of grudges, were doing things that they were not doing, or wanted to do things that they did not want to do.Nobody seemed to care very much, since it didn't involve US citizens, and since people had let fear control their lives and did not want to take any chances, no matter how remote they are.
Hey Sarge, Habib from Jalalabnotgonnaworkhereanymore says this derka farmer in a village 10 miles away hates America!
What are the chances Habib would lie to us?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550650</id>
	<title>Sorry state of mainstream media</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261752780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The next Woodward and Bernstein... to be brought to you by playboy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The next Woodward and Bernstein... to be brought to you by playboy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The next Woodward and Bernstein... to be brought to you by playboy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550734</id>
	<title>Re:The easiest way to stop terrorism:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261754400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh yeah? How about I drill a hole in your dick? I guess you'd like that huh bitch?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yeah ?
How about I drill a hole in your dick ?
I guess you 'd like that huh bitch ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh yeah?
How about I drill a hole in your dick?
I guess you'd like that huh bitch?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550958</id>
	<title>Santa just left after spending night with my GF)</title>
	<author>fregare</author>
	<datestamp>1261757640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes Santa was discussing toy plans with my GF. Yes I believe my GF.  Why should she lie?

Of course the guy was telling the truth.  Why would he lie?  Ask my girlfriend.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes Santa was discussing toy plans with my GF .
Yes I believe my GF .
Why should she lie ?
Of course the guy was telling the truth .
Why would he lie ?
Ask my girlfriend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes Santa was discussing toy plans with my GF.
Yes I believe my GF.
Why should she lie?
Of course the guy was telling the truth.
Why would he lie?
Ask my girlfriend.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550606</id>
	<title>Obligatory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261751700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Military intelligence"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Military intelligence "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Military intelligence"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550542</id>
	<title>Wait, what?</title>
	<author>GreatBunzinni</author>
	<datestamp>1261750260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Playboy article? I guess the real news here is that someone actually reads playboy for the articles. Who knew?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Playboy article ?
I guess the real news here is that someone actually reads playboy for the articles .
Who knew ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Playboy article?
I guess the real news here is that someone actually reads playboy for the articles.
Who knew?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30556844</id>
	<title>Re:Suprise surprise...</title>
	<author>bcmm</author>
	<datestamp>1261852680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The person who knowingly sells parts or software or equipment to the government is attempting sabotage. We need to return to the quite legal custom of executing saboteurs.</p></div></blockquote><p>You've missed my point, which is that the Government agent who knowingly *purchased* the defective software is also a saboteur (and in this case I find it extremely difficult to believe that they did not know the software was nonsense).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The person who knowingly sells parts or software or equipment to the government is attempting sabotage .
We need to return to the quite legal custom of executing saboteurs.You 've missed my point , which is that the Government agent who knowingly * purchased * the defective software is also a saboteur ( and in this case I find it extremely difficult to believe that they did not know the software was nonsense ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The person who knowingly sells parts or software or equipment to the government is attempting sabotage.
We need to return to the quite legal custom of executing saboteurs.You've missed my point, which is that the Government agent who knowingly *purchased* the defective software is also a saboteur (and in this case I find it extremely difficult to believe that they did not know the software was nonsense).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30551028</id>
	<title>Sheeps and fear</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261759020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fear-ridden sheep will believe anything you tell them if it make them sleep at night.<br>- Nietzsche</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fear-ridden sheep will believe anything you tell them if it make them sleep at night.- Nietzsche</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fear-ridden sheep will believe anything you tell them if it make them sleep at night.- Nietzsche</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550602</id>
	<title>Related hoaxes</title>
	<author>vlokje</author>
	<datestamp>1261751640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about detection of satanic messages in music. They are everywhere as this <a href="http://blogs.igalia.com/berto/2008/01/22/satanic-messages-in-the-computer-era/" title="igalia.com" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.igalia.com/berto/2008/01/22/satanic-messages-in-the-computer-era/</a> [igalia.com] person nows. And imagine the target audience. Concerned parents are so much easier than bureaucrats to convince. Hope this idea is still unpatented.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about detection of satanic messages in music .
They are everywhere as this http : //blogs.igalia.com/berto/2008/01/22/satanic-messages-in-the-computer-era/ [ igalia.com ] person nows .
And imagine the target audience .
Concerned parents are so much easier than bureaucrats to convince .
Hope this idea is still unpatented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about detection of satanic messages in music.
They are everywhere as this http://blogs.igalia.com/berto/2008/01/22/satanic-messages-in-the-computer-era/ [igalia.com] person nows.
And imagine the target audience.
Concerned parents are so much easier than bureaucrats to convince.
Hope this idea is still unpatented.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30551312</id>
	<title>So....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261762620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So how many of those terrorist scenarios that they avoided have been for "real"? Does it mean that teh</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So how many of those terrorist scenarios that they avoided have been for " real " ?
Does it mean that teh</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how many of those terrorist scenarios that they avoided have been for "real"?
Does it mean that teh</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550526</id>
	<title>Flights</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1261749840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>&ldquo;What were we going to do and how would we screen people? If we weren&rsquo;t comfortable we wouldn&rsquo;t let a flight take off.&rdquo;</p></div><p>Why are they still following flights and such so closely, while leaving all the other ways open? It wouldn't have the same effect this time, because terrorists just go for emotions of people to get their message out.</p><p>Seems like hysterical thinking for me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>   What were we going to do and how would we screen people ?
If we weren    t comfortable we wouldn    t let a flight take off.    Why are they still following flights and such so closely , while leaving all the other ways open ?
It would n't have the same effect this time , because terrorists just go for emotions of people to get their message out.Seems like hysterical thinking for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>“What were we going to do and how would we screen people?
If we weren’t comfortable we wouldn’t let a flight take off.”Why are they still following flights and such so closely, while leaving all the other ways open?
It wouldn't have the same effect this time, because terrorists just go for emotions of people to get their message out.Seems like hysterical thinking for me.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30551124</id>
	<title>Possibly nobody</title>
	<author>doug141</author>
	<datestamp>1261760700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>So, who do you think will be prosecuted for this?</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>

I know from someone who worked in the DOD these cons can come across a single desk more than once a week, with, interestingly, professional presentations totally at odds with the quality of the science. If it were your job to sort through these, and if you had to sort through HUNDREDS in your career, then the one con who got lucky guesses (law of averages and all) during your testing of him would end your career. Remember a 99\% accurate test is wrong 1\% of the time. Also consider it can be just as bad (or worse) if you turn someone away who did have something novel, especially if it costs lives.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , who do you think will be prosecuted for this ?
I know from someone who worked in the DOD these cons can come across a single desk more than once a week , with , interestingly , professional presentations totally at odds with the quality of the science .
If it were your job to sort through these , and if you had to sort through HUNDREDS in your career , then the one con who got lucky guesses ( law of averages and all ) during your testing of him would end your career .
Remember a 99 \ % accurate test is wrong 1 \ % of the time .
Also consider it can be just as bad ( or worse ) if you turn someone away who did have something novel , especially if it costs lives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> So, who do you think will be prosecuted for this?
I know from someone who worked in the DOD these cons can come across a single desk more than once a week, with, interestingly, professional presentations totally at odds with the quality of the science.
If it were your job to sort through these, and if you had to sort through HUNDREDS in your career, then the one con who got lucky guesses (law of averages and all) during your testing of him would end your career.
Remember a 99\% accurate test is wrong 1\% of the time.
Also consider it can be just as bad (or worse) if you turn someone away who did have something novel, especially if it costs lives.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550608</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0019250_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0019250_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30552286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0019250_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30556844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0019250_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0019250_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30553136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0019250_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0019250_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30551052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0019250_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0019250_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30551426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0019250_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30551630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0019250_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30554506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0019250_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30551124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0019250_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0019250_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0019250_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0019250_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0019250_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0019250_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30552102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0019250_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0019250_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30551716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0019250_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0019250_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30551608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0019250_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0019250_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0019250_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0019250_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30552266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0019250_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30551184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0019250_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30567688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30551270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0019250_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_0019250.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550962
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_0019250.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30551124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550832
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30556844
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_0019250.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550592
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550922
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30551270
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30567688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30551052
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_0019250.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550986
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_0019250.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30554506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30552102
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_0019250.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30552286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550804
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30551426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30551608
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_0019250.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30551184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30551630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30553136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_0019250.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30551716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30552266
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_0019250.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0019250.30550994
</commentlist>
</conversation>
