<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_01_214239</id>
	<title>TSA Nominee's Snooping Raises Privacy Concerns</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1262338560000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"The Washington Post reports that Erroll Southers, President Obama's nominee to head the Transportation Security Administration, gave Congress misleading information about incidents in which he <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123102257.html">inappropriately accessed a federal database</a>, possibly in violation of privacy laws.  Southers accepted full responsibility for a 'grave error in judgment' when he accessed confidential criminal records twenty years ago about his then-estranged wife's new boyfriend. Southers's admission that he was involved in a questionable use of law enforcement background data has been a source of concern among civil libertarians, who believe the TSA performs a delicate balancing act in tapping into passenger information to find terrorists while also protecting citizens' privacy."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " The Washington Post reports that Erroll Southers , President Obama 's nominee to head the Transportation Security Administration , gave Congress misleading information about incidents in which he inappropriately accessed a federal database , possibly in violation of privacy laws .
Southers accepted full responsibility for a 'grave error in judgment ' when he accessed confidential criminal records twenty years ago about his then-estranged wife 's new boyfriend .
Southers 's admission that he was involved in a questionable use of law enforcement background data has been a source of concern among civil libertarians , who believe the TSA performs a delicate balancing act in tapping into passenger information to find terrorists while also protecting citizens ' privacy .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "The Washington Post reports that Erroll Southers, President Obama's nominee to head the Transportation Security Administration, gave Congress misleading information about incidents in which he inappropriately accessed a federal database, possibly in violation of privacy laws.
Southers accepted full responsibility for a 'grave error in judgment' when he accessed confidential criminal records twenty years ago about his then-estranged wife's new boyfriend.
Southers's admission that he was involved in a questionable use of law enforcement background data has been a source of concern among civil libertarians, who believe the TSA performs a delicate balancing act in tapping into passenger information to find terrorists while also protecting citizens' privacy.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616478</id>
	<title>Re:Lets vote...</title>
	<author>Delwin</author>
	<datestamp>1262343480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because we live in a Republic not a Democracy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because we live in a Republic not a Democracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because we live in a Republic not a Democracy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616542</id>
	<title>Re:This will probably be bad</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1262344200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Often times the best people for a job are the ones who've screwed up in a similar way in the past and have learned from the mistake.  They can be far less likely to do the same thing again than someone who has never been presented with the same situation.</p><p>However, since it revealed a character flaw, that person is still not ideal.  The ideal person is someone who was presented with the same situation and did not abuse their sensitive position.</p><p>In other words, the man (or woman, obviously) you want for this job is the man who was estranged from his wife, who then moved herself and their son in with a new boyfriend, yet resisted illegaly searching the federal database for information about the guy and instead went about it another way.</p><p>That's who you want here, though the guy who learned from his mistakes would not be the worst choice in the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Often times the best people for a job are the ones who 've screwed up in a similar way in the past and have learned from the mistake .
They can be far less likely to do the same thing again than someone who has never been presented with the same situation.However , since it revealed a character flaw , that person is still not ideal .
The ideal person is someone who was presented with the same situation and did not abuse their sensitive position.In other words , the man ( or woman , obviously ) you want for this job is the man who was estranged from his wife , who then moved herself and their son in with a new boyfriend , yet resisted illegaly searching the federal database for information about the guy and instead went about it another way.That 's who you want here , though the guy who learned from his mistakes would not be the worst choice in the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Often times the best people for a job are the ones who've screwed up in a similar way in the past and have learned from the mistake.
They can be far less likely to do the same thing again than someone who has never been presented with the same situation.However, since it revealed a character flaw, that person is still not ideal.
The ideal person is someone who was presented with the same situation and did not abuse their sensitive position.In other words, the man (or woman, obviously) you want for this job is the man who was estranged from his wife, who then moved herself and their son in with a new boyfriend, yet resisted illegaly searching the federal database for information about the guy and instead went about it another way.That's who you want here, though the guy who learned from his mistakes would not be the worst choice in the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616532</id>
	<title>Re:This will probably be bad</title>
	<author>haapi</author>
	<datestamp>1262344080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would imagine he's a tad more mature now than 20 years ago and has more perspective on what constitutes "personal turmoil".</p><p>I say confirm him -- he knows the spotlight will be on him, and those under him know that such activities will not be countenanced.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would imagine he 's a tad more mature now than 20 years ago and has more perspective on what constitutes " personal turmoil " .I say confirm him -- he knows the spotlight will be on him , and those under him know that such activities will not be countenanced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would imagine he's a tad more mature now than 20 years ago and has more perspective on what constitutes "personal turmoil".I say confirm him -- he knows the spotlight will be on him, and those under him know that such activities will not be countenanced.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616992</id>
	<title>Nothing new here...</title>
	<author>fahrbot-bot</author>
	<datestamp>1262347920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Person in power believes rules don't apply to self, changes mind when caught." - Film at 11.
<p>
If more people respected or even cared about the spirit - heck, letter - of the law (or morality) instead of their personal wants, desires, and goals, we'd all be better off.  Would the recent near-collapse of the banking industry have happened if the guys at AIG or Goldman-Sachs cared about the ramifications of their greed on others - and by "others" I mean "us", not the other bastards on Wall Street.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Person in power believes rules do n't apply to self , changes mind when caught .
" - Film at 11 .
If more people respected or even cared about the spirit - heck , letter - of the law ( or morality ) instead of their personal wants , desires , and goals , we 'd all be better off .
Would the recent near-collapse of the banking industry have happened if the guys at AIG or Goldman-Sachs cared about the ramifications of their greed on others - and by " others " I mean " us " , not the other bastards on Wall Street .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Person in power believes rules don't apply to self, changes mind when caught.
" - Film at 11.
If more people respected or even cared about the spirit - heck, letter - of the law (or morality) instead of their personal wants, desires, and goals, we'd all be better off.
Would the recent near-collapse of the banking industry have happened if the guys at AIG or Goldman-Sachs cared about the ramifications of their greed on others - and by "others" I mean "us", not the other bastards on Wall Street.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616614</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262344860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I say we all make mistakes, and his was 20 years ago. Behavior like this occurs at all levels and for all sorts of reasons. Accessing the information doesn't concern me so much as if it was acted on in an illegitimate way. THAT would be a whole different story. Besides corporate espionage is a long standing issue. Tell me none of the geeks on here have spoken of privileged information during a job interview for example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I say we all make mistakes , and his was 20 years ago .
Behavior like this occurs at all levels and for all sorts of reasons .
Accessing the information does n't concern me so much as if it was acted on in an illegitimate way .
THAT would be a whole different story .
Besides corporate espionage is a long standing issue .
Tell me none of the geeks on here have spoken of privileged information during a job interview for example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I say we all make mistakes, and his was 20 years ago.
Behavior like this occurs at all levels and for all sorts of reasons.
Accessing the information doesn't concern me so much as if it was acted on in an illegitimate way.
THAT would be a whole different story.
Besides corporate espionage is a long standing issue.
Tell me none of the geeks on here have spoken of privileged information during a job interview for example.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30620876</id>
	<title>Calm down</title>
	<author>cheros</author>
	<datestamp>1262429220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A couple of points.</p><p>1 - it appears that's ALL he did, so I wouldn't call that "systematic" abuse, this is to me more on the level of an expense fiddle or taking a company car home once.<br>2 - the guy ADMITS that he was wrong, in other words, he has at least the right view of his actions.  To me that runs counter to your argument that he shouldn't be trusted with the guardianship, at least this guy seems to know right from wrong<br>3 - because of his admission he will be under far greater scrutiny than any "Mr Teflon" who has managed to get away with transgressions without anyone noticing.  The latter is much more dangerous IMHO because they tend to grow into a view of considering their transgressions "normal".<br>4 - I am unwilling to hang someone for being a normal human being - I'm a normal guy too.  It would be a bit like taking someone's driving license for life for going over the speed limit once.  That approach is exactly what produced the modern politician, the "holier-than-thou" breed where managing press disclosure becomes more important than governing the country, and enabling newspapers to buy your privacy via your "friends".  Case in point: Clinton vs Bush.  One made the mistake of finding the only girl in town who didn't know how to clean a dress but created the first budget surplus in years, the other one appeared Mr Clean but wrecked the US and global economy by his actions.  Bonus point for counting just how many laws Bush excluded himself from with signing statements.</p><p>BTW, the most perfectly managed transgression ever was with Sarkozy: when he was asked if he had a mistress (now his wife), he answered: "And?".  Perfect answer, as it killed the sensation stone dead.  OK, admittedly the French press is more restrained anyway, but from a publicity point of view it was the *perfect* answer..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A couple of points.1 - it appears that 's ALL he did , so I would n't call that " systematic " abuse , this is to me more on the level of an expense fiddle or taking a company car home once.2 - the guy ADMITS that he was wrong , in other words , he has at least the right view of his actions .
To me that runs counter to your argument that he should n't be trusted with the guardianship , at least this guy seems to know right from wrong3 - because of his admission he will be under far greater scrutiny than any " Mr Teflon " who has managed to get away with transgressions without anyone noticing .
The latter is much more dangerous IMHO because they tend to grow into a view of considering their transgressions " normal " .4 - I am unwilling to hang someone for being a normal human being - I 'm a normal guy too .
It would be a bit like taking someone 's driving license for life for going over the speed limit once .
That approach is exactly what produced the modern politician , the " holier-than-thou " breed where managing press disclosure becomes more important than governing the country , and enabling newspapers to buy your privacy via your " friends " .
Case in point : Clinton vs Bush .
One made the mistake of finding the only girl in town who did n't know how to clean a dress but created the first budget surplus in years , the other one appeared Mr Clean but wrecked the US and global economy by his actions .
Bonus point for counting just how many laws Bush excluded himself from with signing statements.BTW , the most perfectly managed transgression ever was with Sarkozy : when he was asked if he had a mistress ( now his wife ) , he answered : " And ? " .
Perfect answer , as it killed the sensation stone dead .
OK , admittedly the French press is more restrained anyway , but from a publicity point of view it was the * perfect * answer. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A couple of points.1 - it appears that's ALL he did, so I wouldn't call that "systematic" abuse, this is to me more on the level of an expense fiddle or taking a company car home once.2 - the guy ADMITS that he was wrong, in other words, he has at least the right view of his actions.
To me that runs counter to your argument that he shouldn't be trusted with the guardianship, at least this guy seems to know right from wrong3 - because of his admission he will be under far greater scrutiny than any "Mr Teflon" who has managed to get away with transgressions without anyone noticing.
The latter is much more dangerous IMHO because they tend to grow into a view of considering their transgressions "normal".4 - I am unwilling to hang someone for being a normal human being - I'm a normal guy too.
It would be a bit like taking someone's driving license for life for going over the speed limit once.
That approach is exactly what produced the modern politician, the "holier-than-thou" breed where managing press disclosure becomes more important than governing the country, and enabling newspapers to buy your privacy via your "friends".
Case in point: Clinton vs Bush.
One made the mistake of finding the only girl in town who didn't know how to clean a dress but created the first budget surplus in years, the other one appeared Mr Clean but wrecked the US and global economy by his actions.
Bonus point for counting just how many laws Bush excluded himself from with signing statements.BTW, the most perfectly managed transgression ever was with Sarkozy: when he was asked if he had a mistress (now his wife), he answered: "And?".
Perfect answer, as it killed the sensation stone dead.
OK, admittedly the French press is more restrained anyway, but from a publicity point of view it was the *perfect* answer..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30618368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30617720</id>
	<title>Re:What's worse?</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1262353380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>or the fact that he tried to mislead Congress about what he actually did?</p></div><p>If you can read, he claims any misleading statements he made were inadvertant, and that he has always taken responsibility for his error in judgment.</p><p>Now, if you want to call him a liar, that's one thing.  What evidence do you have that he intentionally misled congress, as opposed to simply not remembering details about something that happened 20 years ago?  He readily admitted his mistake when documents showed his testimony didn't match.</p><p>I'm sure you remember everything wrong you did 20 years ago with perfect detail, yes?</p><p>Now, I'm not saying he DIDN'T intentionally mislead congress, just that you shouldn't jump to that conclusion when he appears to be making an honest attempt to tell the truth.</p><p>Frankly, he'd be stupid to try to intentionally misleed congress about it, because he got caught when it happened.  Of course they would be able to find out.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>or the fact that he tried to mislead Congress about what he actually did ? If you can read , he claims any misleading statements he made were inadvertant , and that he has always taken responsibility for his error in judgment.Now , if you want to call him a liar , that 's one thing .
What evidence do you have that he intentionally misled congress , as opposed to simply not remembering details about something that happened 20 years ago ?
He readily admitted his mistake when documents showed his testimony did n't match.I 'm sure you remember everything wrong you did 20 years ago with perfect detail , yes ? Now , I 'm not saying he DID N'T intentionally mislead congress , just that you should n't jump to that conclusion when he appears to be making an honest attempt to tell the truth.Frankly , he 'd be stupid to try to intentionally misleed congress about it , because he got caught when it happened .
Of course they would be able to find out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or the fact that he tried to mislead Congress about what he actually did?If you can read, he claims any misleading statements he made were inadvertant, and that he has always taken responsibility for his error in judgment.Now, if you want to call him a liar, that's one thing.
What evidence do you have that he intentionally misled congress, as opposed to simply not remembering details about something that happened 20 years ago?
He readily admitted his mistake when documents showed his testimony didn't match.I'm sure you remember everything wrong you did 20 years ago with perfect detail, yes?Now, I'm not saying he DIDN'T intentionally mislead congress, just that you shouldn't jump to that conclusion when he appears to be making an honest attempt to tell the truth.Frankly, he'd be stupid to try to intentionally misleed congress about it, because he got caught when it happened.
Of course they would be able to find out.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616902</id>
	<title>Re:This will probably be bad</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1262347320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Often times the best people for a job are the ones who've screwed up in a similar way in the past and have learned from the mistake.</p></div></blockquote><p>This is true.
</p><p>The question then becomes "Did this particular guy "learn from his mistake"?
</p><p>Other than the obvious "don't get caught", of course.
</p><p>Personally, I don't really care much at all who heads the TSA.  But I'm concerned that Obama seems to have a hard time picking candidates for Senate confirmation that haven't broken a law relevant to their prospective new job....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Often times the best people for a job are the ones who 've screwed up in a similar way in the past and have learned from the mistake.This is true .
The question then becomes " Did this particular guy " learn from his mistake " ?
Other than the obvious " do n't get caught " , of course .
Personally , I do n't really care much at all who heads the TSA .
But I 'm concerned that Obama seems to have a hard time picking candidates for Senate confirmation that have n't broken a law relevant to their prospective new job... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Often times the best people for a job are the ones who've screwed up in a similar way in the past and have learned from the mistake.This is true.
The question then becomes "Did this particular guy "learn from his mistake"?
Other than the obvious "don't get caught", of course.
Personally, I don't really care much at all who heads the TSA.
But I'm concerned that Obama seems to have a hard time picking candidates for Senate confirmation that haven't broken a law relevant to their prospective new job....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616554</id>
	<title>Inadvertant = I'm a fuckwit</title>
	<author>SlappyBastard</author>
	<datestamp>1262344260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only way this guy gets appointed is if the politicians all sympathize with him.  Not an unlikely outcome, it should be noted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only way this guy gets appointed is if the politicians all sympathize with him .
Not an unlikely outcome , it should be noted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only way this guy gets appointed is if the politicians all sympathize with him.
Not an unlikely outcome, it should be noted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616356</id>
	<title>Inadvertent?  Full Responsibility?</title>
	<author>MarkvW</author>
	<datestamp>1262342460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Inadvertence is incompatible with "full responsibility."</p><p>Inadvertence doesn't make sense when you figure out the number separate, independent, goal-directed decisions that he needed to make in his effort to use a government resource to advance his personal agenda.</p><p>When he says that the act was inadvertent, either he doesn't know what the word means or he is lying.</p><p>Now they want to give him control over one of the most intrusive databases of all time?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Inadvertence is incompatible with " full responsibility .
" Inadvertence does n't make sense when you figure out the number separate , independent , goal-directed decisions that he needed to make in his effort to use a government resource to advance his personal agenda.When he says that the act was inadvertent , either he does n't know what the word means or he is lying.Now they want to give him control over one of the most intrusive databases of all time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Inadvertence is incompatible with "full responsibility.
"Inadvertence doesn't make sense when you figure out the number separate, independent, goal-directed decisions that he needed to make in his effort to use a government resource to advance his personal agenda.When he says that the act was inadvertent, either he doesn't know what the word means or he is lying.Now they want to give him control over one of the most intrusive databases of all time?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616368</id>
	<title>This will probably be bad</title>
	<author>furball</author>
	<datestamp>1262342580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A couple worrying things. He made an error due to great personal turmoil. That's fact.</p><p>Is he saying that he won't make the same error again because the safety of Americans would not cause a great personal turmoil? Would my safety be more casual for him? That's not a selling point to have him appointed, personally.</p><p>If he worried about my safety as he would for his son, would cause a great personal turmoil? If so, what other errors in judgement will be the result?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A couple worrying things .
He made an error due to great personal turmoil .
That 's fact.Is he saying that he wo n't make the same error again because the safety of Americans would not cause a great personal turmoil ?
Would my safety be more casual for him ?
That 's not a selling point to have him appointed , personally.If he worried about my safety as he would for his son , would cause a great personal turmoil ?
If so , what other errors in judgement will be the result ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A couple worrying things.
He made an error due to great personal turmoil.
That's fact.Is he saying that he won't make the same error again because the safety of Americans would not cause a great personal turmoil?
Would my safety be more casual for him?
That's not a selling point to have him appointed, personally.If he worried about my safety as he would for his son, would cause a great personal turmoil?
If so, what other errors in judgement will be the result?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616430</id>
	<title>Who doesn't do this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262343000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect folks with that kind of access who misuse it at least on occasion are far more common than those who don't. What surprises me here, actually, is that there were any checks that resulted in him having been caught in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect folks with that kind of access who misuse it at least on occasion are far more common than those who do n't .
What surprises me here , actually , is that there were any checks that resulted in him having been caught in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect folks with that kind of access who misuse it at least on occasion are far more common than those who don't.
What surprises me here, actually, is that there were any checks that resulted in him having been caught in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30627078</id>
	<title>At least, perhaps, he learned something?</title>
	<author>lanner</author>
	<datestamp>1262433300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See Being There, the movie.</p><p>As much as people enjoy bemoaning a person's past for their mistakes, perhaps it's a good thing that this fellow made a mistake, and maybe has learned from it.  This, rather than someone who has not made the mistake.</p><p>I really don't know anything about the guy, and let's face it; despite this article, neither do you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See Being There , the movie.As much as people enjoy bemoaning a person 's past for their mistakes , perhaps it 's a good thing that this fellow made a mistake , and maybe has learned from it .
This , rather than someone who has not made the mistake.I really do n't know anything about the guy , and let 's face it ; despite this article , neither do you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See Being There, the movie.As much as people enjoy bemoaning a person's past for their mistakes, perhaps it's a good thing that this fellow made a mistake, and maybe has learned from it.
This, rather than someone who has not made the mistake.I really don't know anything about the guy, and let's face it; despite this article, neither do you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616444</id>
	<title>What's the problem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262343180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>he's no worse than Turbo Tax Timmy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>he 's no worse than Turbo Tax Timmy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he's no worse than Turbo Tax Timmy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30619204</id>
	<title>Re:Who doesn't do this?</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1262364000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, considering that this nomination has been blocked by a Republican proto-filibuster for almost 3 months now, I suspect this guy has very little privacy left. Ironic, really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , considering that this nomination has been blocked by a Republican proto-filibuster for almost 3 months now , I suspect this guy has very little privacy left .
Ironic , really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, considering that this nomination has been blocked by a Republican proto-filibuster for almost 3 months now, I suspect this guy has very little privacy left.
Ironic, really.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616552</id>
	<title>He should be perfect in this role</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262344260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure others will point out that this guy has a history of abusing his position for personal reasons.  He will therefore be watched by various people including news people looking for a juicy story and even the appearance of impropriety will likely result in some sort of story.</p><p>I think that abuse of position and power is par for the course.  If he does it and is discovered, it would be a huge disgrace to him, his office and the one who appointed him.  On the other hand, if he resists the urge or is simply very successful at being sneaky, then maybe it's all for the best somehow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure others will point out that this guy has a history of abusing his position for personal reasons .
He will therefore be watched by various people including news people looking for a juicy story and even the appearance of impropriety will likely result in some sort of story.I think that abuse of position and power is par for the course .
If he does it and is discovered , it would be a huge disgrace to him , his office and the one who appointed him .
On the other hand , if he resists the urge or is simply very successful at being sneaky , then maybe it 's all for the best somehow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure others will point out that this guy has a history of abusing his position for personal reasons.
He will therefore be watched by various people including news people looking for a juicy story and even the appearance of impropriety will likely result in some sort of story.I think that abuse of position and power is par for the course.
If he does it and is discovered, it would be a huge disgrace to him, his office and the one who appointed him.
On the other hand, if he resists the urge or is simply very successful at being sneaky, then maybe it's all for the best somehow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30617916</id>
	<title>Re:Why the argument?</title>
	<author>Larryish</author>
	<datestamp>1262354460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Southers's admission that he was involved in a questionable use of law enforcement background data has been a source of concern among civil libertarians, who believe the TSA performs a delicate balancing act in tapping into passenger information to find terrorists while also protecting citizens' privacy.</p></div><p>They actually <i> <b>believe</b> </i> that?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Southers 's admission that he was involved in a questionable use of law enforcement background data has been a source of concern among civil libertarians , who believe the TSA performs a delicate balancing act in tapping into passenger information to find terrorists while also protecting citizens ' privacy.They actually believe that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Southers's admission that he was involved in a questionable use of law enforcement background data has been a source of concern among civil libertarians, who believe the TSA performs a delicate balancing act in tapping into passenger information to find terrorists while also protecting citizens' privacy.They actually  believe  that?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616658</id>
	<title>This is a legitimate reason for...</title>
	<author>cts5678</author>
	<datestamp>1262345100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...opposing this candidate.  Jim DeMint's fear of TSA being allowed to unionize is not a legitimate reason to do so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...opposing this candidate .
Jim DeMint 's fear of TSA being allowed to unionize is not a legitimate reason to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...opposing this candidate.
Jim DeMint's fear of TSA being allowed to unionize is not a legitimate reason to do so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616780</id>
	<title>Change!</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1262346360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, 2010 is 15 hours old where I am. I am so far disappointed. OK, so what have we here. Government official abusing power. Huh. Who woulda thunk.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , 2010 is 15 hours old where I am .
I am so far disappointed .
OK , so what have we here .
Government official abusing power .
Huh. Who woulda thunk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, 2010 is 15 hours old where I am.
I am so far disappointed.
OK, so what have we here.
Government official abusing power.
Huh. Who woulda thunk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616428</id>
	<title>Lets vote...</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1262342940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about we let the American public vote on these important offices rather than let a president that over 47\% of the population opposed appoint them? <br> <br>

Its time we demanded to be able to elect those who seem so worried about taking away our rights. Those who are nominating, appointing and approving them won't have do deal with the consequences of their actions. We, the people of the US, will.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about we let the American public vote on these important offices rather than let a president that over 47 \ % of the population opposed appoint them ?
Its time we demanded to be able to elect those who seem so worried about taking away our rights .
Those who are nominating , appointing and approving them wo n't have do deal with the consequences of their actions .
We , the people of the US , will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about we let the American public vote on these important offices rather than let a president that over 47\% of the population opposed appoint them?
Its time we demanded to be able to elect those who seem so worried about taking away our rights.
Those who are nominating, appointing and approving them won't have do deal with the consequences of their actions.
We, the people of the US, will.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30617690</id>
	<title>TSA is a Terrorist Organization ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262353320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>within a Terrorist government agency, the Department of Homeland Securing and they are backed-up by a Terrorists government, the Chief Executive of the United States of America.</p><p>Janet "Planet" Napolitano was absolutly "as in Vodka" correct in saying "the system worked!"  Yes!  The air-line and national security system is a terrorist system to terrorize citizens of the United States of America.</p><p>The only way the current President, like G.W.B., or any other President, to get re-elected or elected, is through the nationalization of terror, to terrorize the citizens and remind them periodically of terror.</p><p>Ergo, if there is no terror, or no terrorists, then the President and his National Security Organs of Government, need not exist.</p><p>Therefore, the President of the United States of America is the Supreme sponsor of national and international terrorism, and national and international terrorism organizations!</p><p>Osama Bin Laden is payed by the Chief Executive of the United States of America, the President of the U.S.A.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>within a Terrorist government agency , the Department of Homeland Securing and they are backed-up by a Terrorists government , the Chief Executive of the United States of America.Janet " Planet " Napolitano was absolutly " as in Vodka " correct in saying " the system worked !
" Yes !
The air-line and national security system is a terrorist system to terrorize citizens of the United States of America.The only way the current President , like G.W.B. , or any other President , to get re-elected or elected , is through the nationalization of terror , to terrorize the citizens and remind them periodically of terror.Ergo , if there is no terror , or no terrorists , then the President and his National Security Organs of Government , need not exist.Therefore , the President of the United States of America is the Supreme sponsor of national and international terrorism , and national and international terrorism organizations ! Osama Bin Laden is payed by the Chief Executive of the United States of America , the President of the U.S.A .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>within a Terrorist government agency, the Department of Homeland Securing and they are backed-up by a Terrorists government, the Chief Executive of the United States of America.Janet "Planet" Napolitano was absolutly "as in Vodka" correct in saying "the system worked!
"  Yes!
The air-line and national security system is a terrorist system to terrorize citizens of the United States of America.The only way the current President, like G.W.B., or any other President, to get re-elected or elected, is through the nationalization of terror, to terrorize the citizens and remind them periodically of terror.Ergo, if there is no terror, or no terrorists, then the President and his National Security Organs of Government, need not exist.Therefore, the President of the United States of America is the Supreme sponsor of national and international terrorism, and national and international terrorism organizations!Osama Bin Laden is payed by the Chief Executive of the United States of America, the President of the U.S.A.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30620844</id>
	<title>Re:Lets vote...</title>
	<author>coaxial</author>
	<datestamp>1262428680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How about we let the American public vote on these important offices rather than let a president that over 47\% of the population opposed appoint them?</p> </div><p>You're right.  How dare a 53\% majority rule in a democracy!  Where's my ballot for <a href="http://prhome.defense.gov/cpp.html" title="defense.gov" rel="nofollow">Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy</a> [defense.gov].  Screw you Marilee Fitzgerald!  I never voted for you!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about we let the American public vote on these important offices rather than let a president that over 47 \ % of the population opposed appoint them ?
You 're right .
How dare a 53 \ % majority rule in a democracy !
Where 's my ballot for Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy [ defense.gov ] .
Screw you Marilee Fitzgerald !
I never voted for you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about we let the American public vote on these important offices rather than let a president that over 47\% of the population opposed appoint them?
You're right.
How dare a 53\% majority rule in a democracy!
Where's my ballot for Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy [defense.gov].
Screw you Marilee Fitzgerald!
I never voted for you!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30617142</id>
	<title>Disband the TSA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262349120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why are we seeking a new boss for the TSA when we should disband the TSA (Terrorist Security Agency).  Are you terrorized?  I'm not! So why are we being asked to be terrorized when IT IS OUR ENEMIES THAT WISH US TO BE TERRORIZED?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are we seeking a new boss for the TSA when we should disband the TSA ( Terrorist Security Agency ) .
Are you terrorized ?
I 'm not !
So why are we being asked to be terrorized when IT IS OUR ENEMIES THAT WISH US TO BE TERRORIZED ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are we seeking a new boss for the TSA when we should disband the TSA (Terrorist Security Agency).
Are you terrorized?
I'm not!
So why are we being asked to be terrorized when IT IS OUR ENEMIES THAT WISH US TO BE TERRORIZED?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30617090</id>
	<title>Let he who is without sin cast the first stone</title>
	<author>Alerius</author>
	<datestamp>1262348880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, slashdot users certainly want to hold this guy to an amazingly high standard - one that I question whether they could meet themselves. </p><p> <b>Twenty years ago</b> he checked the criminal record of the man his son was going to be living with. Who here would not have done the same thing if they had the access? <b>Twenty years ago</b> he was censured for this act. So he made a mistake and paid the price. Heck after 20 years if he'd been to court and been fined for this, he'd probably have been able to have it removed from his record. He still made a point of disclosing it <b>and then further clarified</b> when he went back and read his notes on the incident <b>and</b> apologized for the discrepancy in the two accounts.
</p><p>If you're seeking a saint to take a political appointment, I'd recommend not holding your breathe.</p><p>Sheesh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , slashdot users certainly want to hold this guy to an amazingly high standard - one that I question whether they could meet themselves .
Twenty years ago he checked the criminal record of the man his son was going to be living with .
Who here would not have done the same thing if they had the access ?
Twenty years ago he was censured for this act .
So he made a mistake and paid the price .
Heck after 20 years if he 'd been to court and been fined for this , he 'd probably have been able to have it removed from his record .
He still made a point of disclosing it and then further clarified when he went back and read his notes on the incident and apologized for the discrepancy in the two accounts .
If you 're seeking a saint to take a political appointment , I 'd recommend not holding your breathe.Sheesh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, slashdot users certainly want to hold this guy to an amazingly high standard - one that I question whether they could meet themselves.
Twenty years ago he checked the criminal record of the man his son was going to be living with.
Who here would not have done the same thing if they had the access?
Twenty years ago he was censured for this act.
So he made a mistake and paid the price.
Heck after 20 years if he'd been to court and been fined for this, he'd probably have been able to have it removed from his record.
He still made a point of disclosing it and then further clarified when he went back and read his notes on the incident and apologized for the discrepancy in the two accounts.
If you're seeking a saint to take a political appointment, I'd recommend not holding your breathe.Sheesh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616766</id>
	<title>Re:Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>tomhath</author>
	<datestamp>1262346120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Accessing the information doesn't concern me so much as if it was acted on in an illegitimate way. </p></div><p>You mean like passing it on to a member of the San Diego police department? Yea, he forgot to mention that the first time too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Accessing the information does n't concern me so much as if it was acted on in an illegitimate way .
You mean like passing it on to a member of the San Diego police department ?
Yea , he forgot to mention that the first time too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Accessing the information doesn't concern me so much as if it was acted on in an illegitimate way.
You mean like passing it on to a member of the San Diego police department?
Yea, he forgot to mention that the first time too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30617160</id>
	<title>Irrelevant</title>
	<author>McDrewbie</author>
	<datestamp>1262349240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It doesn't matter. Almost everyone takes some sort of advantage/liberties at their jobs, especially when younger.  Waiters get free food and drink, office workers look at FB and steal pens.  Glen Beck shills for gold.  Politicians can "fundraise."  He just happened to have the ability to run background checks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't matter .
Almost everyone takes some sort of advantage/liberties at their jobs , especially when younger .
Waiters get free food and drink , office workers look at FB and steal pens .
Glen Beck shills for gold .
Politicians can " fundraise .
" He just happened to have the ability to run background checks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't matter.
Almost everyone takes some sort of advantage/liberties at their jobs, especially when younger.
Waiters get free food and drink, office workers look at FB and steal pens.
Glen Beck shills for gold.
Politicians can "fundraise.
"  He just happened to have the ability to run background checks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616546</id>
	<title>He's our man!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262344200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No moral scruples... check.</p><p>Congratulations. You're just the man we need to institute our plan for Change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No moral scruples... check.Congratulations. You 're just the man we need to institute our plan for Change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No moral scruples... check.Congratulations. You're just the man we need to institute our plan for Change.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616348</id>
	<title>Why the argument?</title>
	<author>Ethanol-fueled</author>
	<datestamp>1262342340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>TSA's mission <i>is</i> the gross violation of personal privacy. The man is perfect for the job!</htmltext>
<tokenext>TSA 's mission is the gross violation of personal privacy .
The man is perfect for the job !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TSA's mission is the gross violation of personal privacy.
The man is perfect for the job!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616512</id>
	<title>What's worse?</title>
	<author>tomhath</author>
	<datestamp>1262343780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact that he used the police database to get revenge on his ex-wife, or the fact that he tried to mislead Congress about what he actually did?</p><p>Now he's saying his original statement that he asked someone else to do the search for him was wrong, that he actually did the searching himself, twice. Voters are getting tired of government officials who conveniently forget facts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that he used the police database to get revenge on his ex-wife , or the fact that he tried to mislead Congress about what he actually did ? Now he 's saying his original statement that he asked someone else to do the search for him was wrong , that he actually did the searching himself , twice .
Voters are getting tired of government officials who conveniently forget facts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that he used the police database to get revenge on his ex-wife, or the fact that he tried to mislead Congress about what he actually did?Now he's saying his original statement that he asked someone else to do the search for him was wrong, that he actually did the searching himself, twice.
Voters are getting tired of government officials who conveniently forget facts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30618368</id>
	<title>WTF is going on in this country?</title>
	<author>Whuffo</author>
	<datestamp>1262356860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not people like this one who went WAY over the line and violated the trust of the American people - it's the poor misguided fools out there who think this is OK somehow and that we should give him another chance. Here's a newsflash for you - he had the position of trust and when temptation arose he gave in shamelessly and the lies he's telling now don't make it acceptable.<p>
I'm not suggesting that this fellow be prevented from living a "normal" life and holding a job - but the proposed job that this fellow is being considered for is one that would put in in the same position he was before when he (for some unexplained reason) failed to uphold the requirements of his position. This fellow is probably just morally challenged - but the people proposing him for this job are fools.</p><p>
Really, folks - we'd never consider placing a child molester as an elementary school teacher. But this fellow would be in a position to cause serious harm to many, many more people. It's a horrible idea. And those who are offering apologetic platitudes for this fellow's past transgressions - what the heck are you fools thinking? This will cause you just as much harm as anyone else - wake up!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not people like this one who went WAY over the line and violated the trust of the American people - it 's the poor misguided fools out there who think this is OK somehow and that we should give him another chance .
Here 's a newsflash for you - he had the position of trust and when temptation arose he gave in shamelessly and the lies he 's telling now do n't make it acceptable .
I 'm not suggesting that this fellow be prevented from living a " normal " life and holding a job - but the proposed job that this fellow is being considered for is one that would put in in the same position he was before when he ( for some unexplained reason ) failed to uphold the requirements of his position .
This fellow is probably just morally challenged - but the people proposing him for this job are fools .
Really , folks - we 'd never consider placing a child molester as an elementary school teacher .
But this fellow would be in a position to cause serious harm to many , many more people .
It 's a horrible idea .
And those who are offering apologetic platitudes for this fellow 's past transgressions - what the heck are you fools thinking ?
This will cause you just as much harm as anyone else - wake up !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not people like this one who went WAY over the line and violated the trust of the American people - it's the poor misguided fools out there who think this is OK somehow and that we should give him another chance.
Here's a newsflash for you - he had the position of trust and when temptation arose he gave in shamelessly and the lies he's telling now don't make it acceptable.
I'm not suggesting that this fellow be prevented from living a "normal" life and holding a job - but the proposed job that this fellow is being considered for is one that would put in in the same position he was before when he (for some unexplained reason) failed to uphold the requirements of his position.
This fellow is probably just morally challenged - but the people proposing him for this job are fools.
Really, folks - we'd never consider placing a child molester as an elementary school teacher.
But this fellow would be in a position to cause serious harm to many, many more people.
It's a horrible idea.
And those who are offering apologetic platitudes for this fellow's past transgressions - what the heck are you fools thinking?
This will cause you just as much harm as anyone else - wake up!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_214239_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_214239_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30620876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30618368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_214239_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_214239_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30619204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_214239_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30617720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_214239_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_214239_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_214239_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30620844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_214239_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30617916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_214239.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30617916
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_214239.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616542
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_214239.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30617090
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_214239.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30618368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30620876
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_214239.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616552
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_214239.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30620844
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_214239.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30619204
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_214239.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_214239.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30617720
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_214239.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30617142
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_214239.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_214239.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_214239.30616356
</commentlist>
</conversation>
