<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_07_2114229</id>
	<title>400 Years Ago, Galileo Discovered Four Jovian Moons</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1262860440000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>krswan writes <i>"OK, the moons themselves are much older, but on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean\_moons">January 7, 1610 Galileo first observed</a> '4 fixed stars' surrounding Jupiter. Observations of their changing positions led Galileo to postulate they were really moons orbiting Jupiter, which became further evidence against Aristotelian Cosmology, which led to problems with the Roman Catholic Church, etc... Jupiter will be low in the southwest (in the Northern Hemisphere) after sunset this evening &mdash; nothing else around it is as bright, so you can't miss it. Celebrate by pointing binoculars or a telescope at Jupiter and checking out the moons for yourself."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>krswan writes " OK , the moons themselves are much older , but on January 7 , 1610 Galileo first observed '4 fixed stars ' surrounding Jupiter .
Observations of their changing positions led Galileo to postulate they were really moons orbiting Jupiter , which became further evidence against Aristotelian Cosmology , which led to problems with the Roman Catholic Church , etc... Jupiter will be low in the southwest ( in the Northern Hemisphere ) after sunset this evening    nothing else around it is as bright , so you ca n't miss it .
Celebrate by pointing binoculars or a telescope at Jupiter and checking out the moons for yourself .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>krswan writes "OK, the moons themselves are much older, but on January 7, 1610 Galileo first observed '4 fixed stars' surrounding Jupiter.
Observations of their changing positions led Galileo to postulate they were really moons orbiting Jupiter, which became further evidence against Aristotelian Cosmology, which led to problems with the Roman Catholic Church, etc... Jupiter will be low in the southwest (in the Northern Hemisphere) after sunset this evening — nothing else around it is as bright, so you can't miss it.
Celebrate by pointing binoculars or a telescope at Jupiter and checking out the moons for yourself.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30691114</id>
	<title>Re:Let's just get this out of the way, shall we?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262889060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/222458" title="newgrounds.com" rel="nofollow">What happen!!</a> [newgrounds.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What happen ! !
[ newgrounds.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happen!!
[newgrounds.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689096</id>
	<title>Re:I saw them myself...</title>
	<author>Foobar\_</author>
	<datestamp>1262866860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The moons are actually bright enough to be seen with the naked eye, but as you discovered with the zoom knob, they're too close to Jupiter for (almost) anyone to resolve.</p><p>People with unusually sharp vision have seen Venus as a crescent when it's close to Earth, and seen the Galilean moons attending Jupiter when they swing farthest from it. Last person I read about that could do this was an eagle-eyed Arab archer, interviewed IIRC by Arthur Schuster during his expedition to the May 18 1882 eclipse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The moons are actually bright enough to be seen with the naked eye , but as you discovered with the zoom knob , they 're too close to Jupiter for ( almost ) anyone to resolve.People with unusually sharp vision have seen Venus as a crescent when it 's close to Earth , and seen the Galilean moons attending Jupiter when they swing farthest from it .
Last person I read about that could do this was an eagle-eyed Arab archer , interviewed IIRC by Arthur Schuster during his expedition to the May 18 1882 eclipse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The moons are actually bright enough to be seen with the naked eye, but as you discovered with the zoom knob, they're too close to Jupiter for (almost) anyone to resolve.People with unusually sharp vision have seen Venus as a crescent when it's close to Earth, and seen the Galilean moons attending Jupiter when they swing farthest from it.
Last person I read about that could do this was an eagle-eyed Arab archer, interviewed IIRC by Arthur Schuster during his expedition to the May 18 1882 eclipse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690612</id>
	<title>Re:Let's just get this out of the way, shall we?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262881920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh yeah? Well next year is the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible. 1611<br>I claim first post on that one.<br>And I'll just get this out of the way for all you weenies who are going to try to one-up me:</p><p>Hallelelujah!</p><p>And religious nerds are way cooler than science nerds.<br>And the girls are hotter... at least in orange county churches that is (in southern california).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yeah ?
Well next year is the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible .
1611I claim first post on that one.And I 'll just get this out of the way for all you weenies who are going to try to one-up me : Hallelelujah ! And religious nerds are way cooler than science nerds.And the girls are hotter... at least in orange county churches that is ( in southern california ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh yeah?
Well next year is the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible.
1611I claim first post on that one.And I'll just get this out of the way for all you weenies who are going to try to one-up me:Hallelelujah!And religious nerds are way cooler than science nerds.And the girls are hotter... at least in orange county churches that is (in southern california).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30695738</id>
	<title>Re:The church isn't a bunch of biblical literalist</title>
	<author>belloc</author>
	<datestamp>1262971020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I still haven't heard an explaination for why we're supposed to eat fish on Fridays that made any sense."</p><p>This is an explanation:  meat is expensive; in the past it was often prohibitively so.  Christians who had the means to afford meat for their daily meals were asked to give it up on one day a week, that is, on the weekly celebration of Christ's death each Friday.  They were then asked to donate to the poor the money that they would have spent on the meat.  This was, and still is, considered to have two benefits:  the Christian can to a very small degree identify with the self-giving of Christ by making a personal sacrifice (by not indulging in tasty meaty goodness), and by providing for the less fortunate (giving the funds to the poor), all in one act.</p><p>Why fish then?  Fish was substituted as a less expensive alternative to the more expensive beef, pork, or poultry, so that the Christian could still have a healthy meal in his or her diet on Friday.  Recently this practice has been relaxed (except during Lent when it is still required), so that the Christian can come up with his own penitential act each Friday.</p><p>Whether you agree with this practice or not, I don't think you can deny that it makes at least a little sense.  Also, this might help:  imagine a similar practice in another culture of which you are less critical than you are of Catholic culture (Native American spirituality, Buddhism, Islam, etc).  You'd probably not criticize it so readily; in fact, you'd probably have praiseworthy things to say about it.</p><p>"Hell, go to a Catholic mass for once. It's all "Stand, sit, stand, kneel." It's like the priest is a gym teacher putting the parishioners through calisthenics."</p><p>Again, an explanation:  Catholics and Orthodox Christians, much more so than Protestants, hold that we are spiritual AND bodily beings, and that we pray not only with our souls but with our bodies.  Your posture (i.e, bodily position) is the way to pray with your body.  Similar to the way that you stand in a courtroom to show respect to an entering judge, or the way that you go down on one knee when you propose to a woman, what you do with your body is an outward sign of what you're doing with your soul.  The Catholic Mass is full of various "postures" of the soul toward God and toward your fellow congregants, and the bodily postures are designed to be signs of these inner dispositions.  It seems like calisthenics to an outsider, but when understood rightly it is quite beautiful.</p><p>Again, you might not agree with all the sitting, standing, or kneeling, but you asked for a reasonable explanation, and I've tried to give one.  I'm really not trying to be antagonistic here, just to explain the things you've asked about; I hope it helps you to be a more informed Catholic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I still have n't heard an explaination for why we 're supposed to eat fish on Fridays that made any sense .
" This is an explanation : meat is expensive ; in the past it was often prohibitively so .
Christians who had the means to afford meat for their daily meals were asked to give it up on one day a week , that is , on the weekly celebration of Christ 's death each Friday .
They were then asked to donate to the poor the money that they would have spent on the meat .
This was , and still is , considered to have two benefits : the Christian can to a very small degree identify with the self-giving of Christ by making a personal sacrifice ( by not indulging in tasty meaty goodness ) , and by providing for the less fortunate ( giving the funds to the poor ) , all in one act.Why fish then ?
Fish was substituted as a less expensive alternative to the more expensive beef , pork , or poultry , so that the Christian could still have a healthy meal in his or her diet on Friday .
Recently this practice has been relaxed ( except during Lent when it is still required ) , so that the Christian can come up with his own penitential act each Friday.Whether you agree with this practice or not , I do n't think you can deny that it makes at least a little sense .
Also , this might help : imagine a similar practice in another culture of which you are less critical than you are of Catholic culture ( Native American spirituality , Buddhism , Islam , etc ) .
You 'd probably not criticize it so readily ; in fact , you 'd probably have praiseworthy things to say about it .
" Hell , go to a Catholic mass for once .
It 's all " Stand , sit , stand , kneel .
" It 's like the priest is a gym teacher putting the parishioners through calisthenics .
" Again , an explanation : Catholics and Orthodox Christians , much more so than Protestants , hold that we are spiritual AND bodily beings , and that we pray not only with our souls but with our bodies .
Your posture ( i.e , bodily position ) is the way to pray with your body .
Similar to the way that you stand in a courtroom to show respect to an entering judge , or the way that you go down on one knee when you propose to a woman , what you do with your body is an outward sign of what you 're doing with your soul .
The Catholic Mass is full of various " postures " of the soul toward God and toward your fellow congregants , and the bodily postures are designed to be signs of these inner dispositions .
It seems like calisthenics to an outsider , but when understood rightly it is quite beautiful.Again , you might not agree with all the sitting , standing , or kneeling , but you asked for a reasonable explanation , and I 've tried to give one .
I 'm really not trying to be antagonistic here , just to explain the things you 've asked about ; I hope it helps you to be a more informed Catholic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I still haven't heard an explaination for why we're supposed to eat fish on Fridays that made any sense.
"This is an explanation:  meat is expensive; in the past it was often prohibitively so.
Christians who had the means to afford meat for their daily meals were asked to give it up on one day a week, that is, on the weekly celebration of Christ's death each Friday.
They were then asked to donate to the poor the money that they would have spent on the meat.
This was, and still is, considered to have two benefits:  the Christian can to a very small degree identify with the self-giving of Christ by making a personal sacrifice (by not indulging in tasty meaty goodness), and by providing for the less fortunate (giving the funds to the poor), all in one act.Why fish then?
Fish was substituted as a less expensive alternative to the more expensive beef, pork, or poultry, so that the Christian could still have a healthy meal in his or her diet on Friday.
Recently this practice has been relaxed (except during Lent when it is still required), so that the Christian can come up with his own penitential act each Friday.Whether you agree with this practice or not, I don't think you can deny that it makes at least a little sense.
Also, this might help:  imagine a similar practice in another culture of which you are less critical than you are of Catholic culture (Native American spirituality, Buddhism, Islam, etc).
You'd probably not criticize it so readily; in fact, you'd probably have praiseworthy things to say about it.
"Hell, go to a Catholic mass for once.
It's all "Stand, sit, stand, kneel.
" It's like the priest is a gym teacher putting the parishioners through calisthenics.
"Again, an explanation:  Catholics and Orthodox Christians, much more so than Protestants, hold that we are spiritual AND bodily beings, and that we pray not only with our souls but with our bodies.
Your posture (i.e, bodily position) is the way to pray with your body.
Similar to the way that you stand in a courtroom to show respect to an entering judge, or the way that you go down on one knee when you propose to a woman, what you do with your body is an outward sign of what you're doing with your soul.
The Catholic Mass is full of various "postures" of the soul toward God and toward your fellow congregants, and the bodily postures are designed to be signs of these inner dispositions.
It seems like calisthenics to an outsider, but when understood rightly it is quite beautiful.Again, you might not agree with all the sitting, standing, or kneeling, but you asked for a reasonable explanation, and I've tried to give one.
I'm really not trying to be antagonistic here, just to explain the things you've asked about; I hope it helps you to be a more informed Catholic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690136</id>
	<title>Re:Well, to be fair...</title>
	<author>adamziegler</author>
	<datestamp>1262876400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Also something to note... Copernicus was a Catholic Priest.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also something to note... Copernicus was a Catholic Priest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also something to note... Copernicus was a Catholic Priest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688760</id>
	<title>No, I won't</title>
	<author>hardburn</author>
	<datestamp>1262864640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Jupiter will be low in the southwest (in the Northern Hemisphere) after sunset this evening &mdash; nothing else around it is as bright, so you can't miss it.</p></div><p>I can miss it, because I'm living in the middle of a snow storm. Insensitive clod, etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Jupiter will be low in the southwest ( in the Northern Hemisphere ) after sunset this evening    nothing else around it is as bright , so you ca n't miss it.I can miss it , because I 'm living in the middle of a snow storm .
Insensitive clod , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jupiter will be low in the southwest (in the Northern Hemisphere) after sunset this evening — nothing else around it is as bright, so you can't miss it.I can miss it, because I'm living in the middle of a snow storm.
Insensitive clod, etc.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690366</id>
	<title>Re:A little ignorance never hurt anyone, eh?</title>
	<author>Joe Torres</author>
	<datestamp>1262878980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did the Church suppress science?
"I, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei, Florentine, aged 70 years, arraigned personally before
this tribunal, and kneeling before You, Most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, Inquisitors-General
against heretical depravity throughout the Christian commonwealth, having before my eyes and touching
with my hands the Holy Gospels, swear that I have always believed, I believe now, and with God's
help I will in future believe all that is held, preached, and taught by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic
Church. But whereas - after having been admonished by this Holy Office entirely to abandon the false
opinion that the Sun is the centre of the world and immovable, and that the Earth is not the centre of
the same and that it moves, and that I must not hold, defend, nor teach in any manner whatever, either
orally or in writing the said false doctrine..."
I may be thinking in absolutes, but "Galileo's political antagonism" does not justify this forced retraction.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did the Church suppress science ?
" I , Galileo , son of the late Vincenzio Galilei , Florentine , aged 70 years , arraigned personally before this tribunal , and kneeling before You , Most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals , Inquisitors-General against heretical depravity throughout the Christian commonwealth , having before my eyes and touching with my hands the Holy Gospels , swear that I have always believed , I believe now , and with God 's help I will in future believe all that is held , preached , and taught by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church .
But whereas - after having been admonished by this Holy Office entirely to abandon the false opinion that the Sun is the centre of the world and immovable , and that the Earth is not the centre of the same and that it moves , and that I must not hold , defend , nor teach in any manner whatever , either orally or in writing the said false doctrine... " I may be thinking in absolutes , but " Galileo 's political antagonism " does not justify this forced retraction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did the Church suppress science?
"I, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei, Florentine, aged 70 years, arraigned personally before
this tribunal, and kneeling before You, Most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, Inquisitors-General
against heretical depravity throughout the Christian commonwealth, having before my eyes and touching
with my hands the Holy Gospels, swear that I have always believed, I believe now, and with God's
help I will in future believe all that is held, preached, and taught by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic
Church.
But whereas - after having been admonished by this Holy Office entirely to abandon the false
opinion that the Sun is the centre of the world and immovable, and that the Earth is not the centre of
the same and that it moves, and that I must not hold, defend, nor teach in any manner whatever, either
orally or in writing the said false doctrine..."
I may be thinking in absolutes, but "Galileo's political antagonism" does not justify this forced retraction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689284</id>
	<title>Don't worry...</title>
	<author>Foobar of Borg</author>
	<datestamp>1262868600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Talk about a late slashdot story</p></div></blockquote><p> Don't worry.  It'll be duped in 100 years.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Talk about a late slashdot story Do n't worry .
It 'll be duped in 100 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talk about a late slashdot story Don't worry.
It'll be duped in 100 years.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689570</id>
	<title>The church isn't a bunch of biblical literalists</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262870760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I mean be fair. It's annoying when people talk about the RCC as a bunch of biblical literalists. (One step above creationists.) As a Catholic I can tell you they're not, they're control freaks. That's what they like, to control information. Then let that information out slowly. I mean they kept the bible and masses in Latin for centuries. (It's kind of hard to interpret the bible for yourself if you don't understand the language it's written in.) Of course there's loads of stuff that they did over the centuries where it's kind of hard to figure out where in the bible it said that.(Like indulgences. I still haven't heard an explaination for why we're supposed to eat fish on Fridays that made any sense.) Hell, go to a Catholic mass for once. It's all "Stand, sit, stand, kneel." It's like the priest is a gym teacher putting the parishioners through calisthenics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean be fair .
It 's annoying when people talk about the RCC as a bunch of biblical literalists .
( One step above creationists .
) As a Catholic I can tell you they 're not , they 're control freaks .
That 's what they like , to control information .
Then let that information out slowly .
I mean they kept the bible and masses in Latin for centuries .
( It 's kind of hard to interpret the bible for yourself if you do n't understand the language it 's written in .
) Of course there 's loads of stuff that they did over the centuries where it 's kind of hard to figure out where in the bible it said that .
( Like indulgences .
I still have n't heard an explaination for why we 're supposed to eat fish on Fridays that made any sense .
) Hell , go to a Catholic mass for once .
It 's all " Stand , sit , stand , kneel .
" It 's like the priest is a gym teacher putting the parishioners through calisthenics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean be fair.
It's annoying when people talk about the RCC as a bunch of biblical literalists.
(One step above creationists.
) As a Catholic I can tell you they're not, they're control freaks.
That's what they like, to control information.
Then let that information out slowly.
I mean they kept the bible and masses in Latin for centuries.
(It's kind of hard to interpret the bible for yourself if you don't understand the language it's written in.
) Of course there's loads of stuff that they did over the centuries where it's kind of hard to figure out where in the bible it said that.
(Like indulgences.
I still haven't heard an explaination for why we're supposed to eat fish on Fridays that made any sense.
) Hell, go to a Catholic mass for once.
It's all "Stand, sit, stand, kneel.
" It's like the priest is a gym teacher putting the parishioners through calisthenics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690342</id>
	<title>Re:I missed something</title>
	<author>CheshireCatCO</author>
	<datestamp>1262878680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is Halley's comet more significant than the discovery of the first moons in our solar system, apart from our own?  (Long thought to be a "planet", not a moon in the modern sense.)  With a stroke, Galileo established that other planets could have systems around them, not just Earth.  Given that conventional views were that Earth was the center of all heavenly motions, that was pretty major.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is Halley 's comet more significant than the discovery of the first moons in our solar system , apart from our own ?
( Long thought to be a " planet " , not a moon in the modern sense .
) With a stroke , Galileo established that other planets could have systems around them , not just Earth .
Given that conventional views were that Earth was the center of all heavenly motions , that was pretty major .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is Halley's comet more significant than the discovery of the first moons in our solar system, apart from our own?
(Long thought to be a "planet", not a moon in the modern sense.
)  With a stroke, Galileo established that other planets could have systems around them, not just Earth.
Given that conventional views were that Earth was the center of all heavenly motions, that was pretty major.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688932</id>
	<title>The Galileo vs. Catholic Church myth.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262865900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is the truth behind the myth that he was persecuted for heliocentricity rather than offending the Church in another way.  Don't reply unless you RTFA:  http://www.catholic.com/library/Galileo\_Controversy.asp</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is the truth behind the myth that he was persecuted for heliocentricity rather than offending the Church in another way .
Do n't reply unless you RTFA : http : //www.catholic.com/library/Galileo \ _Controversy.asp</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is the truth behind the myth that he was persecuted for heliocentricity rather than offending the Church in another way.
Don't reply unless you RTFA:  http://www.catholic.com/library/Galileo\_Controversy.asp</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688668</id>
	<title>Let's just get this out of the way, shall we?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262864160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Galileo!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Galileo !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Galileo!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689350</id>
	<title>Re:Let's just get this out of the way, shall we?</title>
	<author>iamapizza</author>
	<datestamp>1262868960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgbNymZ7vqY" title="youtube.com">Muppets &gt; Queen</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Muppets &gt; Queen [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Muppets &gt; Queen [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30697964</id>
	<title>Someone else saw them first?</title>
	<author>alex\_royle</author>
	<datestamp>1262979840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How likely is that Thomas Harriot discovered the four moons before Galileo, or possibly someone else?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How likely is that Thomas Harriot discovered the four moons before Galileo , or possibly someone else ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How likely is that Thomas Harriot discovered the four moons before Galileo, or possibly someone else?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30694398</id>
	<title>Re:The church isn't a bunch of biblical literalist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262966100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe you will find satisfactory answers to all that you mention if you seek it out.  I'll mention simply on the matter of translations a few points:</p><p>* We take for granted that people read the Bible, or at the very least they are capable of doing so today<br>* We further take for granted that printed text is cheap and available<br>* The Church *did* translate the Bible into the vernacular but has maintained that the Latin Vulgate produced by Saint Jerome is the authoritative version<br>* At times the Church prohibited some vernacular translations because they omitted books or took liberties in translation that were disruptive to the unity of faith.  Critics will sometimes point with glee at how the Bible made its way onto the list of banned books but they rarely explain that it applied to specific translations.<br>* This may seem like a control issue, but the Magesterium has the sole authority to interpret Scripture.  They have done a remarkably good job of it and it has prevented the chaos and disunity of faith evidenced where private interpretation (sola scriptura) is the norm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe you will find satisfactory answers to all that you mention if you seek it out .
I 'll mention simply on the matter of translations a few points : * We take for granted that people read the Bible , or at the very least they are capable of doing so today * We further take for granted that printed text is cheap and available * The Church * did * translate the Bible into the vernacular but has maintained that the Latin Vulgate produced by Saint Jerome is the authoritative version * At times the Church prohibited some vernacular translations because they omitted books or took liberties in translation that were disruptive to the unity of faith .
Critics will sometimes point with glee at how the Bible made its way onto the list of banned books but they rarely explain that it applied to specific translations .
* This may seem like a control issue , but the Magesterium has the sole authority to interpret Scripture .
They have done a remarkably good job of it and it has prevented the chaos and disunity of faith evidenced where private interpretation ( sola scriptura ) is the norm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe you will find satisfactory answers to all that you mention if you seek it out.
I'll mention simply on the matter of translations a few points:* We take for granted that people read the Bible, or at the very least they are capable of doing so today* We further take for granted that printed text is cheap and available* The Church *did* translate the Bible into the vernacular but has maintained that the Latin Vulgate produced by Saint Jerome is the authoritative version* At times the Church prohibited some vernacular translations because they omitted books or took liberties in translation that were disruptive to the unity of faith.
Critics will sometimes point with glee at how the Bible made its way onto the list of banned books but they rarely explain that it applied to specific translations.
* This may seem like a control issue, but the Magesterium has the sole authority to interpret Scripture.
They have done a remarkably good job of it and it has prevented the chaos and disunity of faith evidenced where private interpretation (sola scriptura) is the norm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690926</id>
	<title>Re:A little ignorance never hurt anyone, eh?</title>
	<author>iris-n</author>
	<datestamp>1262886180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This, my dear, is trolling. It began with Feyerabend, the father of all trolls.</p><p>But I actually like the current revisionism, because it makes Galileo a human character that people can relate to, instead of the perfect demigod that lit the torch of science.</p><p>The point that he was a prick and played dirty is moot. His life was at stake, ffs.</p><p>The point is that it was possible for a parallel government ruin a man's life for what he wrote in a book.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This , my dear , is trolling .
It began with Feyerabend , the father of all trolls.But I actually like the current revisionism , because it makes Galileo a human character that people can relate to , instead of the perfect demigod that lit the torch of science.The point that he was a prick and played dirty is moot .
His life was at stake , ffs.The point is that it was possible for a parallel government ruin a man 's life for what he wrote in a book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This, my dear, is trolling.
It began with Feyerabend, the father of all trolls.But I actually like the current revisionism, because it makes Galileo a human character that people can relate to, instead of the perfect demigod that lit the torch of science.The point that he was a prick and played dirty is moot.
His life was at stake, ffs.The point is that it was possible for a parallel government ruin a man's life for what he wrote in a book.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688670</id>
	<title>I missed something</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262864220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a big fan of History, and I'm also a fan of Astronomy. Jupiter is a little rare but its no Haley's Comet...</p><p>So what exactly are we "Celebrating"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a big fan of History , and I 'm also a fan of Astronomy .
Jupiter is a little rare but its no Haley 's Comet...So what exactly are we " Celebrating " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a big fan of History, and I'm also a fan of Astronomy.
Jupiter is a little rare but its no Haley's Comet...So what exactly are we "Celebrating"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690648</id>
	<title>Why didn't Galileo build a sniper rifle?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262882580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why didn't Galileo attach his telescope to a rifle? He could have eliminated all of his pig headed enemies, assuming they rifles were around back then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why did n't Galileo attach his telescope to a rifle ?
He could have eliminated all of his pig headed enemies , assuming they rifles were around back then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why didn't Galileo attach his telescope to a rifle?
He could have eliminated all of his pig headed enemies, assuming they rifles were around back then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30702718</id>
	<title>Re:Happy Io Discovery Day, /.</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1262958000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which bit is Wikipedia wrong on?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which bit is Wikipedia wrong on ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which bit is Wikipedia wrong on?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30692446</id>
	<title>Binoculars</title>
	<author>dugeen</author>
	<datestamp>1262949720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your best chance of seeing the moons with binoculars is if you rest the binoculars on something, preferably a tripod. I never saw one Jovian moon with binos until I found a way to keep them still (the binos, not the moons).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your best chance of seeing the moons with binoculars is if you rest the binoculars on something , preferably a tripod .
I never saw one Jovian moon with binos until I found a way to keep them still ( the binos , not the moons ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your best chance of seeing the moons with binoculars is if you rest the binoculars on something, preferably a tripod.
I never saw one Jovian moon with binos until I found a way to keep them still (the binos, not the moons).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690256</id>
	<title>Re:No, I won't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262877660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can miss it as well, because I live on the north side of a very steep and very high mountain, and furthermore my house is surrounded by trees.  The north wall doesn't see sun from September to May.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can miss it as well , because I live on the north side of a very steep and very high mountain , and furthermore my house is surrounded by trees .
The north wall does n't see sun from September to May .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can miss it as well, because I live on the north side of a very steep and very high mountain, and furthermore my house is surrounded by trees.
The north wall doesn't see sun from September to May.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688862</id>
	<title>Re:Well!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262865240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Talk about a late slashdot story</p></div></blockquote><p>To make matters worse, it's a dupe. The first came out on a linen scroll (no, it didn't run Linex).<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Talk about a late slashdot storyTo make matters worse , it 's a dupe .
The first came out on a linen scroll ( no , it did n't run Linex ) .
     </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talk about a late slashdot storyTo make matters worse, it's a dupe.
The first came out on a linen scroll (no, it didn't run Linex).
     
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689312</id>
	<title>It's been 400 years? Do you know what that means?</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1262868660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>39 years ago (in 1981), the Catholic Church finally got around to forgiving Galileo for insisting that the Earth was not the center of the universe! Nobody can say the Pope isn't up to speed on all the latest issues!</htmltext>
<tokenext>39 years ago ( in 1981 ) , the Catholic Church finally got around to forgiving Galileo for insisting that the Earth was not the center of the universe !
Nobody can say the Pope is n't up to speed on all the latest issues !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>39 years ago (in 1981), the Catholic Church finally got around to forgiving Galileo for insisting that the Earth was not the center of the universe!
Nobody can say the Pope isn't up to speed on all the latest issues!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689714</id>
	<title>Re:I saw them myself...</title>
	<author>initialE</author>
	<datestamp>1262872140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a sad point for me that I only got to see a really starry night once in my life, in the middle of the south china sea, and I'm not likely to see it ever again. The dark skies project may sound nice and all, but it's unlikely to ever come to reality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a sad point for me that I only got to see a really starry night once in my life , in the middle of the south china sea , and I 'm not likely to see it ever again .
The dark skies project may sound nice and all , but it 's unlikely to ever come to reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a sad point for me that I only got to see a really starry night once in my life, in the middle of the south china sea, and I'm not likely to see it ever again.
The dark skies project may sound nice and all, but it's unlikely to ever come to reality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689012</id>
	<title>Re:Well!</title>
	<author>jamesh</author>
	<datestamp>1262866380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>400 years? That's about normal isn't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>400 years ?
That 's about normal is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>400 years?
That's about normal isn't it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30693988</id>
	<title>Re:Well, to be fair...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262964420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To round this out a bit further, the following article has an excellent summation (by a non-Catholic astronomer albeit published on a Catholic-focussed site) of the situation:</p><p>http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9911fea4.asp</p><p>That Galileo was correct in his hypothesis alone doesn't condone that he made assertions of fact based on (then) uncertain data. If we judge his censure as harsh by modern standards we should also then judge harshly Galileo's rash jump to conclusions and his poor decorum in advancing the theory. A better alternative of course is to be charitable to both parties and recognize that they were both of noble intent and we should hope the 25th century is likewise generous in judging our behavior today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To round this out a bit further , the following article has an excellent summation ( by a non-Catholic astronomer albeit published on a Catholic-focussed site ) of the situation : http : //www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9911fea4.aspThat Galileo was correct in his hypothesis alone does n't condone that he made assertions of fact based on ( then ) uncertain data .
If we judge his censure as harsh by modern standards we should also then judge harshly Galileo 's rash jump to conclusions and his poor decorum in advancing the theory .
A better alternative of course is to be charitable to both parties and recognize that they were both of noble intent and we should hope the 25th century is likewise generous in judging our behavior today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To round this out a bit further, the following article has an excellent summation (by a non-Catholic astronomer albeit published on a Catholic-focussed site) of the situation:http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9911fea4.aspThat Galileo was correct in his hypothesis alone doesn't condone that he made assertions of fact based on (then) uncertain data.
If we judge his censure as harsh by modern standards we should also then judge harshly Galileo's rash jump to conclusions and his poor decorum in advancing the theory.
A better alternative of course is to be charitable to both parties and recognize that they were both of noble intent and we should hope the 25th century is likewise generous in judging our behavior today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688920</id>
	<title>Re:I missed something</title>
	<author>Rei</author>
	<datestamp>1262865780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bah, what Galileo did wasn't special.  Anyone with just a regular old consumer grade digital camera and a tripod can <a href="http://www.daughtersoftiresias.org/images/2007/06.\%20June/Astrophotography/Galilean\%20moons\%20diagram.jpg" title="daughtersoftiresias.org">do the same</a> [daughtersoftiresias.org] (<a href="http://www.daughtersoftiresias.org/images/2007/07.\%20July/Jupiter/Galilean\%20moons.jpg" title="daughtersoftiresias.org">shorter exposure</a> [daughtersoftiresias.org] later that summer).</p><p>What a bragger.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bah , what Galileo did was n't special .
Anyone with just a regular old consumer grade digital camera and a tripod can do the same [ daughtersoftiresias.org ] ( shorter exposure [ daughtersoftiresias.org ] later that summer ) .What a bragger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bah, what Galileo did wasn't special.
Anyone with just a regular old consumer grade digital camera and a tripod can do the same [daughtersoftiresias.org] (shorter exposure [daughtersoftiresias.org] later that summer).What a bragger.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30692356</id>
	<title>Not quite correct</title>
	<author>Kupfernigk</author>
	<datestamp>1262948640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm an admirer of Copernicus (my nick is his actual name) and the story is a lot more complicated than that. During the writing of de Revolutionibus Orbium Caelestium, Kupfernigk discovered that, owing to the greater accuracy of observations available to him, his system was becoming just as complicated as that of Ptolemaus. He was, as a good pre-scientist, well aware that he was building a mathematical structure on a theory which, like String Theory now, wasn't really testable. He was also living in a much more backward culture than was Galileo. His caution is natural.<p>The Eastern bloc was more backward even then. Kepler has to return in a hurry to Regensberg at one point to defend his mother who was accused of witchcraft. Galileo on the other hand was a very important man, the top technical expert in Florence, the public face of the most advanced science of the day. He was the equivalent of Edison, Fermi, Einstein and Feynman rolled into one. Of course he thought he could push his views further than could much lesser academics. We <i>need</i> Galileos to stand up to be counted in a world where people can take a Sarah Palin seriously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm an admirer of Copernicus ( my nick is his actual name ) and the story is a lot more complicated than that .
During the writing of de Revolutionibus Orbium Caelestium , Kupfernigk discovered that , owing to the greater accuracy of observations available to him , his system was becoming just as complicated as that of Ptolemaus .
He was , as a good pre-scientist , well aware that he was building a mathematical structure on a theory which , like String Theory now , was n't really testable .
He was also living in a much more backward culture than was Galileo .
His caution is natural.The Eastern bloc was more backward even then .
Kepler has to return in a hurry to Regensberg at one point to defend his mother who was accused of witchcraft .
Galileo on the other hand was a very important man , the top technical expert in Florence , the public face of the most advanced science of the day .
He was the equivalent of Edison , Fermi , Einstein and Feynman rolled into one .
Of course he thought he could push his views further than could much lesser academics .
We need Galileos to stand up to be counted in a world where people can take a Sarah Palin seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm an admirer of Copernicus (my nick is his actual name) and the story is a lot more complicated than that.
During the writing of de Revolutionibus Orbium Caelestium, Kupfernigk discovered that, owing to the greater accuracy of observations available to him, his system was becoming just as complicated as that of Ptolemaus.
He was, as a good pre-scientist, well aware that he was building a mathematical structure on a theory which, like String Theory now, wasn't really testable.
He was also living in a much more backward culture than was Galileo.
His caution is natural.The Eastern bloc was more backward even then.
Kepler has to return in a hurry to Regensberg at one point to defend his mother who was accused of witchcraft.
Galileo on the other hand was a very important man, the top technical expert in Florence, the public face of the most advanced science of the day.
He was the equivalent of Edison, Fermi, Einstein and Feynman rolled into one.
Of course he thought he could push his views further than could much lesser academics.
We need Galileos to stand up to be counted in a world where people can take a Sarah Palin seriously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689368</id>
	<title>Anniversary</title>
	<author>machine321</author>
	<datestamp>1262869020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have no proof the moons are older than 400 years...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have no proof the moons are older than 400 years.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have no proof the moons are older than 400 years...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30693242</id>
	<title>Gravity is Electric</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262959500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know the EE's here will find this interesting.</p><p>www.electric-cosmos.org</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know the EE 's here will find this interesting.www.electric-cosmos.org</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know the EE's here will find this interesting.www.electric-cosmos.org</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30691002</id>
	<title>Re:A little ignorance never hurt anyone, eh?</title>
	<author>gillbates</author>
	<datestamp>1262887020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The main problem I have with seeing it as a conflict between religious dogma and scientific investigation is that the Church waited almost a full century before acting, and when it did, it seemed almost reluctant.  During the same time period, a person could be hanged for denying the Holy Trinity.
</p><ol>
<li>Copernicus had proposed a heliocentric system almost a century before Galileo, and yet suffered no persecution by the Church because of it.  Even Luther commented that his ideas were revolutionary.</li>
<li>Tycho Brahe had been cataloging astronomical observations for decades, and it was upon this data that Galileo relied.  If the Church disagreed with the heliocentric model as much as we are led to believe, why didn't the Church also persecute Brahe or ban his works?</li>
<li>Why is Galileo credited primarily with the heliocentric model, when Copernicus first put forth the mathematical model and Brahe collected the observations necessary to support it?  Could it be because he was prosecuted for heresy, and *someone* wants to paint the Church as anti-science?</li>
</ol><p>
In light of the above, it is much more plausible that Galileo's persecution was political, rather than religious.  The Pope at first indicated a willingness to be open minded regarding the issue; at least one Cardinal was likewise open minded, but not convinced.  However, Galileo spurned the Pope, and it seems his political rivals finally found - in an otherwise minor doctrine - a noose in which to hang Galileo.  Except that the Church seemed almost reluctant to prosecute; in a time when heretics were hanged, he got away with house arrest.  And the Pope made him look like a fool, in much the same way Galileo had treated him in his book.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The main problem I have with seeing it as a conflict between religious dogma and scientific investigation is that the Church waited almost a full century before acting , and when it did , it seemed almost reluctant .
During the same time period , a person could be hanged for denying the Holy Trinity .
Copernicus had proposed a heliocentric system almost a century before Galileo , and yet suffered no persecution by the Church because of it .
Even Luther commented that his ideas were revolutionary .
Tycho Brahe had been cataloging astronomical observations for decades , and it was upon this data that Galileo relied .
If the Church disagreed with the heliocentric model as much as we are led to believe , why did n't the Church also persecute Brahe or ban his works ?
Why is Galileo credited primarily with the heliocentric model , when Copernicus first put forth the mathematical model and Brahe collected the observations necessary to support it ?
Could it be because he was prosecuted for heresy , and * someone * wants to paint the Church as anti-science ?
In light of the above , it is much more plausible that Galileo 's persecution was political , rather than religious .
The Pope at first indicated a willingness to be open minded regarding the issue ; at least one Cardinal was likewise open minded , but not convinced .
However , Galileo spurned the Pope , and it seems his political rivals finally found - in an otherwise minor doctrine - a noose in which to hang Galileo .
Except that the Church seemed almost reluctant to prosecute ; in a time when heretics were hanged , he got away with house arrest .
And the Pope made him look like a fool , in much the same way Galileo had treated him in his book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The main problem I have with seeing it as a conflict between religious dogma and scientific investigation is that the Church waited almost a full century before acting, and when it did, it seemed almost reluctant.
During the same time period, a person could be hanged for denying the Holy Trinity.
Copernicus had proposed a heliocentric system almost a century before Galileo, and yet suffered no persecution by the Church because of it.
Even Luther commented that his ideas were revolutionary.
Tycho Brahe had been cataloging astronomical observations for decades, and it was upon this data that Galileo relied.
If the Church disagreed with the heliocentric model as much as we are led to believe, why didn't the Church also persecute Brahe or ban his works?
Why is Galileo credited primarily with the heliocentric model, when Copernicus first put forth the mathematical model and Brahe collected the observations necessary to support it?
Could it be because he was prosecuted for heresy, and *someone* wants to paint the Church as anti-science?
In light of the above, it is much more plausible that Galileo's persecution was political, rather than religious.
The Pope at first indicated a willingness to be open minded regarding the issue; at least one Cardinal was likewise open minded, but not convinced.
However, Galileo spurned the Pope, and it seems his political rivals finally found - in an otherwise minor doctrine - a noose in which to hang Galileo.
Except that the Church seemed almost reluctant to prosecute; in a time when heretics were hanged, he got away with house arrest.
And the Pope made him look like a fool, in much the same way Galileo had treated him in his book.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30692112</id>
	<title>Re:A little ignorance never hurt anyone, eh?</title>
	<author>Thomas Miconi</author>
	<datestamp>1262945580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>He's demonstrated the ability to deal with concepts in varying degrees, and to understand the difference between a *political* objection, and a doctrinal one.</p></div><p>From <a href="http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/recantation.html" title="umkc.edu">Galileo's recantation letter</a> [umkc.edu]:</p><p><i><br>I must altogether abandon the <b>false opinion</b> that the sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center of the world, and moves, and that I must not hold, defend, or teach in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing, the said false doctrine, and after it had been notified to me that <b>the said doctrine was contrary to Holy Scripture</b> [...] I have been pronounced by the Holy Office to be vehemently suspected of <b>heresy</b>, that is to say, of having held and believed that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center and moves:<br></i></p><p>Also, for some reason you fail to discuss the prelude to the whole debacle, when the Church <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert\_Bellarmine" title="wikipedia.org">officially condemned the Copernician doctrine, and notified Galileo of the fact.</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Does the Church suppress science?</p></div><p>They explicitly threatened to burn him alive if he did not recant, specifically because his theories contradicted the official interpretation of scripture (that's the official justification as set out in the documents, including the letter above). Under what definition of "suppress" does this not count as "suppressing science"?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Even though he may publicly laud free inquiry and study, he simply dismisses any source which disagrees with his predisposed notions of the world.</p></div><p>That describes you to a T.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's demonstrated the ability to deal with concepts in varying degrees , and to understand the difference between a * political * objection , and a doctrinal one.From Galileo 's recantation letter [ umkc.edu ] : I must altogether abandon the false opinion that the sun is the center of the world and immovable , and that the earth is not the center of the world , and moves , and that I must not hold , defend , or teach in any way whatsoever , verbally or in writing , the said false doctrine , and after it had been notified to me that the said doctrine was contrary to Holy Scripture [ ... ] I have been pronounced by the Holy Office to be vehemently suspected of heresy , that is to say , of having held and believed that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable , and that the earth is not the center and moves : Also , for some reason you fail to discuss the prelude to the whole debacle , when the Church officially condemned the Copernician doctrine , and notified Galileo of the fact .
[ wikipedia.org ] Does the Church suppress science ? They explicitly threatened to burn him alive if he did not recant , specifically because his theories contradicted the official interpretation of scripture ( that 's the official justification as set out in the documents , including the letter above ) .
Under what definition of " suppress " does this not count as " suppressing science " ? Even though he may publicly laud free inquiry and study , he simply dismisses any source which disagrees with his predisposed notions of the world.That describes you to a T .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's demonstrated the ability to deal with concepts in varying degrees, and to understand the difference between a *political* objection, and a doctrinal one.From Galileo's recantation letter [umkc.edu]:I must altogether abandon the false opinion that the sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center of the world, and moves, and that I must not hold, defend, or teach in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing, the said false doctrine, and after it had been notified to me that the said doctrine was contrary to Holy Scripture [...] I have been pronounced by the Holy Office to be vehemently suspected of heresy, that is to say, of having held and believed that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center and moves:Also, for some reason you fail to discuss the prelude to the whole debacle, when the Church officially condemned the Copernician doctrine, and notified Galileo of the fact.
[wikipedia.org] Does the Church suppress science?They explicitly threatened to burn him alive if he did not recant, specifically because his theories contradicted the official interpretation of scripture (that's the official justification as set out in the documents, including the letter above).
Under what definition of "suppress" does this not count as "suppressing science"?Even though he may publicly laud free inquiry and study, he simply dismisses any source which disagrees with his predisposed notions of the world.That describes you to a T.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689280</id>
	<title>Topical for once</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1262868540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now that's what I call news!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that 's what I call news !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that's what I call news!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689114</id>
	<title>Re:I saw them myself...</title>
	<author>lastchance\_000</author>
	<datestamp>1262866980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You don't need a huge pair (of binoculars) to see them. I've used a good quality set of Celestron 10x50's.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't need a huge pair ( of binoculars ) to see them .
I 've used a good quality set of Celestron 10x50 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't need a huge pair (of binoculars) to see them.
I've used a good quality set of Celestron 10x50's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690946</id>
	<title>Re:It's been 400 years? Do you know what that mean</title>
	<author>drseuk</author>
	<datestamp>1262886300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it 2020 already? Christ, that was some New Year's hangover.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it 2020 already ?
Christ , that was some New Year 's hangover .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it 2020 already?
Christ, that was some New Year's hangover.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690164</id>
	<title>Re:Well, to be fair...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262876640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And yet THE TURTLE MOVES!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet THE TURTLE MOVES !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet THE TURTLE MOVES!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689172</id>
	<title>Heliocentrism wasn't the problem</title>
	<author>afortaleza</author>
	<datestamp>1262867580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Heliocentrism was NEVER a problem for the Catholic Church, Copernicus never had a problem with that many years earlier. Galileo was the pope's cousin and constantly defied the pope on his writings, never touching heliocentrism, heliocentrism was just the way they used to get him some punishment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Heliocentrism was NEVER a problem for the Catholic Church , Copernicus never had a problem with that many years earlier .
Galileo was the pope 's cousin and constantly defied the pope on his writings , never touching heliocentrism , heliocentrism was just the way they used to get him some punishment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heliocentrism was NEVER a problem for the Catholic Church, Copernicus never had a problem with that many years earlier.
Galileo was the pope's cousin and constantly defied the pope on his writings, never touching heliocentrism, heliocentrism was just the way they used to get him some punishment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688766</id>
	<title>Well, to be fair...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262864640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>which became further evidence against Aristotelian Cosmology, which led to problems with the Roman Catholic Church</i> </p><p>
To be fair, he also came up with this crazy-wrong idea about how the earth's motion was responsible for the tides. Also, making fun of <i>any</i> 17th-century Italian nobleman (Pope or otherwise) by naming a character in your book  "Simpleton" (Simplicio) and strongly implying that you based it off of him.... after he's trying to give you a chance and says "write it up, try to fairly represent both points of view, okay?"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Well, that's the just sort of social/political ineptitude that's going to get you into serious trouble. (Think of <i>that</i> next time you stumble into office politics.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>which became further evidence against Aristotelian Cosmology , which led to problems with the Roman Catholic Church To be fair , he also came up with this crazy-wrong idea about how the earth 's motion was responsible for the tides .
Also , making fun of any 17th-century Italian nobleman ( Pope or otherwise ) by naming a character in your book " Simpleton " ( Simplicio ) and strongly implying that you based it off of him.... after he 's trying to give you a chance and says " write it up , try to fairly represent both points of view , okay ?
" ... Well , that 's the just sort of social/political ineptitude that 's going to get you into serious trouble .
( Think of that next time you stumble into office politics .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext> which became further evidence against Aristotelian Cosmology, which led to problems with the Roman Catholic Church 
To be fair, he also came up with this crazy-wrong idea about how the earth's motion was responsible for the tides.
Also, making fun of any 17th-century Italian nobleman (Pope or otherwise) by naming a character in your book  "Simpleton" (Simplicio) and strongly implying that you based it off of him.... after he's trying to give you a chance and says "write it up, try to fairly represent both points of view, okay?
" ... Well, that's the just sort of social/political ineptitude that's going to get you into serious trouble.
(Think of that next time you stumble into office politics.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690230</id>
	<title>Re:Happy Io Discovery Day, /.</title>
	<author>Roger W Moore</author>
	<datestamp>1262877240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Definitely a good time to check out Jupiter and the four Galilean moons</p></div><p>
Yes it was - a beautiful view though at -24C outside it was a tad on the cold side! The moons were nicely balanced two on each side. Now my kids can say that they saw the Galilean satellites for the first time exactly 400 years after Galileo first saw (three of) them - thank you Slashdot!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Definitely a good time to check out Jupiter and the four Galilean moons Yes it was - a beautiful view though at -24C outside it was a tad on the cold side !
The moons were nicely balanced two on each side .
Now my kids can say that they saw the Galilean satellites for the first time exactly 400 years after Galileo first saw ( three of ) them - thank you Slashdot !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Definitely a good time to check out Jupiter and the four Galilean moons
Yes it was - a beautiful view though at -24C outside it was a tad on the cold side!
The moons were nicely balanced two on each side.
Now my kids can say that they saw the Galilean satellites for the first time exactly 400 years after Galileo first saw (three of) them - thank you Slashdot!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689440</id>
	<title>Re:A little ignorance never hurt anyone, eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262869620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Science is dispassionate, that doesn't mean the scientist have to be weak, meek, and keep their heads down for fear of pissing off some fools or otherwise. This is the problem we have today, just look at the crap church nutters repeatedly attempt to get into the science curriculum. Note: the "science" lessons, not philosophy or religious studies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Science is dispassionate , that does n't mean the scientist have to be weak , meek , and keep their heads down for fear of pissing off some fools or otherwise .
This is the problem we have today , just look at the crap church nutters repeatedly attempt to get into the science curriculum .
Note : the " science " lessons , not philosophy or religious studies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science is dispassionate, that doesn't mean the scientist have to be weak, meek, and keep their heads down for fear of pissing off some fools or otherwise.
This is the problem we have today, just look at the crap church nutters repeatedly attempt to get into the science curriculum.
Note: the "science" lessons, not philosophy or religious studies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688984</id>
	<title>Re:Well, to be fair...</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1262866200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>To be fair to the pope, Galileo was a bit of a prick.<br> <br>

To be fair to everybody who isn't a medieval reactionary, the pope used state power against Galileo just because of an argument they were having.<br> <br> <br>

That's the thing. It isn't that the pope is the villain of the piece because he opposed a specific idea, it is that the pope is the villain of the piece because he stands for everyone who is willing to meet criticism with force, which is ultimately far more important than being on the wrong side of a single scientific dispute. Had Galileo been a crackpot, with some absurd turtle-based cosmology, the pope would still have been the villain(though Galileo would have been the comic relief, rather than the hero).<br> <br>

Even a cursory glance at the history of science suggests that, at any given time, most people(laymen or scientists) are wrong about enormous amounts of stuff and, where they are right, it is mostly because somebody else figured it out for them. Being on the wrong side of a scientific debate is not a character flaw or a sin. Using force instead of reason is both.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair to the pope , Galileo was a bit of a prick .
To be fair to everybody who is n't a medieval reactionary , the pope used state power against Galileo just because of an argument they were having .
That 's the thing .
It is n't that the pope is the villain of the piece because he opposed a specific idea , it is that the pope is the villain of the piece because he stands for everyone who is willing to meet criticism with force , which is ultimately far more important than being on the wrong side of a single scientific dispute .
Had Galileo been a crackpot , with some absurd turtle-based cosmology , the pope would still have been the villain ( though Galileo would have been the comic relief , rather than the hero ) .
Even a cursory glance at the history of science suggests that , at any given time , most people ( laymen or scientists ) are wrong about enormous amounts of stuff and , where they are right , it is mostly because somebody else figured it out for them .
Being on the wrong side of a scientific debate is not a character flaw or a sin .
Using force instead of reason is both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair to the pope, Galileo was a bit of a prick.
To be fair to everybody who isn't a medieval reactionary, the pope used state power against Galileo just because of an argument they were having.
That's the thing.
It isn't that the pope is the villain of the piece because he opposed a specific idea, it is that the pope is the villain of the piece because he stands for everyone who is willing to meet criticism with force, which is ultimately far more important than being on the wrong side of a single scientific dispute.
Had Galileo been a crackpot, with some absurd turtle-based cosmology, the pope would still have been the villain(though Galileo would have been the comic relief, rather than the hero).
Even a cursory glance at the history of science suggests that, at any given time, most people(laymen or scientists) are wrong about enormous amounts of stuff and, where they are right, it is mostly because somebody else figured it out for them.
Being on the wrong side of a scientific debate is not a character flaw or a sin.
Using force instead of reason is both.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688882</id>
	<title>Re:Well, to be fair...</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1262865480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To be fair, he also came up with this crazy-wrong idea about how the earth's motion was responsible for the tides.</p></div><p>To be fair, that's not entirely wrong. If the Earth rotated at different speeds the tides would be observably different.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , he also came up with this crazy-wrong idea about how the earth 's motion was responsible for the tides.To be fair , that 's not entirely wrong .
If the Earth rotated at different speeds the tides would be observably different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, he also came up with this crazy-wrong idea about how the earth's motion was responsible for the tides.To be fair, that's not entirely wrong.
If the Earth rotated at different speeds the tides would be observably different.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690420</id>
	<title>Re:A little ignorance never hurt anyone, eh?</title>
	<author>Tyler Durden</author>
	<datestamp>1262879460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Ironic, as for years the Galileo affair was a classic incident that Protestants held as demonstrating the abusive and backward position of the Catholic church.</p></div></blockquote><p>

"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."
-Martin Luther
</p><p>
The Protestants were no better.  They just didn't happen to have the political power to enforce their biblical-inerrancy induced idiocy at the time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ironic , as for years the Galileo affair was a classic incident that Protestants held as demonstrating the abusive and backward position of the Catholic church .
" People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves , not the heavens or the firmament , the sun and the moon .
Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system , which of all systems is of course the very best .
This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy ; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still , and not the earth .
" -Martin Luther The Protestants were no better .
They just did n't happen to have the political power to enforce their biblical-inerrancy induced idiocy at the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ironic, as for years the Galileo affair was a classic incident that Protestants held as demonstrating the abusive and backward position of the Catholic church.
"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon.
Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best.
This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.
"
-Martin Luther

The Protestants were no better.
They just didn't happen to have the political power to enforce their biblical-inerrancy induced idiocy at the time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688960</id>
	<title>Happy Io Discovery Day, /.</title>
	<author>volcanopele</author>
	<datestamp>1262866140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Definitely a good time to check out Jupiter and the four Galilean moons before conjunction which happens in the next couple of months, so Jupiter would then be too close to the Sun.
<p>
A minor quibble with the summary above.  On January 7, 1610, Galileo only recorded 3 "fixed stars" next to Jupiter.  <a href="http://gishbar.blogspot.com/2010/01/io400-part-4-400-years-ago-today.html" title="blogspot.com">Two of the Galilean moons, Io and Europa, were too close together for Galileo to separate with his 20x power telescope.</a> [blogspot.com]  He continued to observe three moons at most, either because one or more moons were too close to Jupiter and were lost in the glare of the planet, Callisto was too far from Jupiter and was thus out of his telescope's field-of-view, or two of the moons were too close together, during subsequent nights, until January 13, when he was able to see all four for the first time.
</p><p>
Wikipedia is wrong on one point.  True, his first observation of all four moon at once didn't come until January 13 and he didn't realize that there were four and not three until that time, but that doesn't mean that one moon's discovery (in Wikipedia's case, Ganymede) should be attributed to that date.  By that point, he had observed all four on multiple occasions, just not all four at once.  And to that point he hadn't even come to the conclusion that they were in orbit around Jupiter with their own separate orbits, moving a different speeds, until two days later, let alone ascribe identities to each of the stars he saw, connecting one star he saw with another from a different day, beyond the one to the east, the one to the west, and the one in the middle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Definitely a good time to check out Jupiter and the four Galilean moons before conjunction which happens in the next couple of months , so Jupiter would then be too close to the Sun .
A minor quibble with the summary above .
On January 7 , 1610 , Galileo only recorded 3 " fixed stars " next to Jupiter .
Two of the Galilean moons , Io and Europa , were too close together for Galileo to separate with his 20x power telescope .
[ blogspot.com ] He continued to observe three moons at most , either because one or more moons were too close to Jupiter and were lost in the glare of the planet , Callisto was too far from Jupiter and was thus out of his telescope 's field-of-view , or two of the moons were too close together , during subsequent nights , until January 13 , when he was able to see all four for the first time .
Wikipedia is wrong on one point .
True , his first observation of all four moon at once did n't come until January 13 and he did n't realize that there were four and not three until that time , but that does n't mean that one moon 's discovery ( in Wikipedia 's case , Ganymede ) should be attributed to that date .
By that point , he had observed all four on multiple occasions , just not all four at once .
And to that point he had n't even come to the conclusion that they were in orbit around Jupiter with their own separate orbits , moving a different speeds , until two days later , let alone ascribe identities to each of the stars he saw , connecting one star he saw with another from a different day , beyond the one to the east , the one to the west , and the one in the middle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Definitely a good time to check out Jupiter and the four Galilean moons before conjunction which happens in the next couple of months, so Jupiter would then be too close to the Sun.
A minor quibble with the summary above.
On January 7, 1610, Galileo only recorded 3 "fixed stars" next to Jupiter.
Two of the Galilean moons, Io and Europa, were too close together for Galileo to separate with his 20x power telescope.
[blogspot.com]  He continued to observe three moons at most, either because one or more moons were too close to Jupiter and were lost in the glare of the planet, Callisto was too far from Jupiter and was thus out of his telescope's field-of-view, or two of the moons were too close together, during subsequent nights, until January 13, when he was able to see all four for the first time.
Wikipedia is wrong on one point.
True, his first observation of all four moon at once didn't come until January 13 and he didn't realize that there were four and not three until that time, but that doesn't mean that one moon's discovery (in Wikipedia's case, Ganymede) should be attributed to that date.
By that point, he had observed all four on multiple occasions, just not all four at once.
And to that point he hadn't even come to the conclusion that they were in orbit around Jupiter with their own separate orbits, moving a different speeds, until two days later, let alone ascribe identities to each of the stars he saw, connecting one star he saw with another from a different day, beyond the one to the east, the one to the west, and the one in the middle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688718</id>
	<title>Re:I missed something</title>
	<author>MaXintosh</author>
	<datestamp>1262864400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>400 years since the observation by an eminent scientist, who then turned that observation into a revolution of astronomy? The life and times of Galileo? The rise of Heliocentrism?<br>You know. Stuff that they said in the slashdot article?</htmltext>
<tokenext>400 years since the observation by an eminent scientist , who then turned that observation into a revolution of astronomy ?
The life and times of Galileo ?
The rise of Heliocentrism ? You know .
Stuff that they said in the slashdot article ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>400 years since the observation by an eminent scientist, who then turned that observation into a revolution of astronomy?
The life and times of Galileo?
The rise of Heliocentrism?You know.
Stuff that they said in the slashdot article?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689056</id>
	<title>Re:Let's just get this out of the way, shall we?</title>
	<author>grcumb</author>
	<datestamp>1262866620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Galileo!</p></div><p>MOON 1 [sings]: <br>
I'm just a small moon <br>
Nobody sees me</p><p>MOONS 2,3,4: <br>
He's just a small moon <br>
Smaller than Ganymede</p><p>GALILEO: <br>
But wait! What? OH!<br>
I think I've found Io!</p><p>MOONS 2,3,4: <br>
He thinks he's found Io!</p><p>GALILEO: <br>
I think I've found Io!</p><p>MOON 2: <br>
GALILEO!</p><p>MOON 3: <br>
GALILEO!</p><p>GALILEO: <br>
FIGARO!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Galileo ! MOON 1 [ sings ] : I 'm just a small moon Nobody sees meMOONS 2,3,4 : He 's just a small moon Smaller than GanymedeGALILEO : But wait !
What ? OH !
I think I 've found Io ! MOONS 2,3,4 : He thinks he 's found Io ! GALILEO : I think I 've found Io ! MOON 2 : GALILEO ! MOON 3 : GALILEO ! GALILEO : FIGARO !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Galileo!MOON 1 [sings]: 
I'm just a small moon 
Nobody sees meMOONS 2,3,4: 
He's just a small moon 
Smaller than GanymedeGALILEO: 
But wait!
What? OH!
I think I've found Io!MOONS 2,3,4: 
He thinks he's found Io!GALILEO: 
I think I've found Io!MOON 2: 
GALILEO!MOON 3: 
GALILEO!GALILEO: 
FIGARO!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689032</id>
	<title>Re:Let's just get this out of the way, shall we?</title>
	<author>cashman73</author>
	<datestamp>1262866440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seeing as how it's now 2010, let's just get this out of the way, too,... =)<p>

All these worlds are yours<br>
Except Europa.<br>
Attempt no landing there.<br>
Use them together.<br>
Use them in peace.</p><p>

When's the supernova? =)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seeing as how it 's now 2010 , let 's just get this out of the way , too,... = ) All these worlds are yours Except Europa .
Attempt no landing there .
Use them together .
Use them in peace .
When 's the supernova ?
= )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seeing as how it's now 2010, let's just get this out of the way, too,... =)

All these worlds are yours
Except Europa.
Attempt no landing there.
Use them together.
Use them in peace.
When's the supernova?
=)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688872</id>
	<title>I saw them myself...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262865360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... back in 1985, while underway on my ship in the U.S. Navy, middle of the Indian Ocean.</p><p>I was off watch, and went and visited a Signalman friend up above the wheel house. They had a set of huge binoculars, which they called "big eyes". The sky was crystal clear, you could clearly see the bands of the Milky Way across the sky. Found Jupiter and zoomed in as far as I could, and clearly saw some of the moons around it. It was a neat experience seeing them myself for the first time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... back in 1985 , while underway on my ship in the U.S. Navy , middle of the Indian Ocean.I was off watch , and went and visited a Signalman friend up above the wheel house .
They had a set of huge binoculars , which they called " big eyes " .
The sky was crystal clear , you could clearly see the bands of the Milky Way across the sky .
Found Jupiter and zoomed in as far as I could , and clearly saw some of the moons around it .
It was a neat experience seeing them myself for the first time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... back in 1985, while underway on my ship in the U.S. Navy, middle of the Indian Ocean.I was off watch, and went and visited a Signalman friend up above the wheel house.
They had a set of huge binoculars, which they called "big eyes".
The sky was crystal clear, you could clearly see the bands of the Milky Way across the sky.
Found Jupiter and zoomed in as far as I could, and clearly saw some of the moons around it.
It was a neat experience seeing them myself for the first time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688964</id>
	<title>Re:Well, to be fair...</title>
	<author>Rei</author>
	<datestamp>1262866140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quite true.  Coperincus had a lot more tact, and kept out of trouble largely thanks to that.  Galileo even went so far as to personally try to interpret scripture to match his theory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite true .
Coperincus had a lot more tact , and kept out of trouble largely thanks to that .
Galileo even went so far as to personally try to interpret scripture to match his theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite true.
Coperincus had a lot more tact, and kept out of trouble largely thanks to that.
Galileo even went so far as to personally try to interpret scripture to match his theory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688940</id>
	<title>So the Catholic Church said to Galileo</title>
	<author>Megahard</author>
	<datestamp>1262865960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's no moon!</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's no moon !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's no moon!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688684</id>
	<title>Well!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262864280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Talk about a late slashdot story</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Talk about a late slashdot story</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talk about a late slashdot story</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689080</id>
	<title>A little ignorance never hurt anyone, eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262866740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
further evidence against Aristotelian Cosmology, which led to problems with the Roman Catholic Church, etc...
</p><p>
I know that people who repeat such things are only showing their ignorance (heck, even Wikipedia explains the controversy better), but I feel this lie gets repeated often enough that it should be addressed.
</p><p>
According to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo\_Galilei" title="wikipedia.org">Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org]:
</p><p> <i>
In its opening passage, Galileo and Guiducci's Discourse <b>gratuitously insulted</b> the Jesuit Christopher Scheiner,[56] and various <b>uncomplimentary remarks</b> about the professors of the Collegio Romano were scattered throughout the work.[57] The Jesuits were offended,[58] and Grassi soon replied with a polemical tract of his own, The Astronomical and Philosophical Balance<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,[59] under the pseudonym Lothario Sarsio Sigensano,[60] purporting to be one of his own pupils.
</i>
</p><p>
And later:
</p><p>
<i>Pope Urban VIII personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book, </i>
</p><p>
Indeed, it was Galileo's political antagonism, not his ideas, that got him trouble.  Imagine that.
</p><p>
There is a very simple question one can ask to determine if a someone is genuinely objective and dispassionate in their search for the truth:
</p><ul> <li>Does the Church suppress science?</li>
</ul><p>The manner in which this question is answered is often quite revealing:
</p><ol> <li>Someone with no critical thinking skills, nor ability to understand anything but absolutes, will almost invariably mention Galileo and blame the Church for suppressing science and free thought.  The irony, of course, is that it's a moot point: it hardly matters if free thought is suppressed when the speaker goes to considerable lengths to avoid doing so.  Even though he may publicly laud free inquiry and study, he simply dismisses any source which disagrees with his predisposed notions of the world.</li>
<li>Someone who answers that "there's no proof" that Galileo is correct is probably heading off on a tangent which will end in a discussion about evolution.  Again, probably not a very insightful individual, but at least his own views are consistent with his internal model of the world.</li>
<li>Someone who explains that while the Church did create the university system; and continues to fund science to this day; while also allowing that at times in the past it has been used for political ends is probably someone with a very educated opinion.  He's demonstrated the ability to deal with concepts in varying degrees, and to understand the difference between a *political* objection, and a doctrinal one.</li>
</ol><p>
In much the same way that there exist Creationists who refuse to accept any evidence contrary to their opinion, even to the point of committing logical fallacies, there exist individuals who really don't read history, and just blindly accept whatever they've been told.  Worse, they often repeat things which are provably false, which - aside from the damage done to the Church - call into question their ability to think rationally and perform rigorous analysis.
</p><p>
The Galileo fiasco - that is, the belief that the Church is somehow anti-science because of what happened to Galileo - is an interesting teaching moment.  The outworn argument against Creationists, Flat-Earthers, Global-Warming deniers, etc... has always been that science is objective, dispassionate.  And yet, in the Galileo fiasco, you have people who in matters of science are otherwise logical and objective, repeating something they know (or should know) is false.
</p><p>
Interesting.
</p><p>
It seems the failings of human nature apply to everyone, after all.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>further evidence against Aristotelian Cosmology , which led to problems with the Roman Catholic Church , etc.. . I know that people who repeat such things are only showing their ignorance ( heck , even Wikipedia explains the controversy better ) , but I feel this lie gets repeated often enough that it should be addressed .
According to Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] : In its opening passage , Galileo and Guiducci 's Discourse gratuitously insulted the Jesuit Christopher Scheiner , [ 56 ] and various uncomplimentary remarks about the professors of the Collegio Romano were scattered throughout the work .
[ 57 ] The Jesuits were offended , [ 58 ] and Grassi soon replied with a polemical tract of his own , The Astronomical and Philosophical Balance , [ 59 ] under the pseudonym Lothario Sarsio Sigensano , [ 60 ] purporting to be one of his own pupils .
And later : Pope Urban VIII personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book , Indeed , it was Galileo 's political antagonism , not his ideas , that got him trouble .
Imagine that .
There is a very simple question one can ask to determine if a someone is genuinely objective and dispassionate in their search for the truth : Does the Church suppress science ?
The manner in which this question is answered is often quite revealing : Someone with no critical thinking skills , nor ability to understand anything but absolutes , will almost invariably mention Galileo and blame the Church for suppressing science and free thought .
The irony , of course , is that it 's a moot point : it hardly matters if free thought is suppressed when the speaker goes to considerable lengths to avoid doing so .
Even though he may publicly laud free inquiry and study , he simply dismisses any source which disagrees with his predisposed notions of the world .
Someone who answers that " there 's no proof " that Galileo is correct is probably heading off on a tangent which will end in a discussion about evolution .
Again , probably not a very insightful individual , but at least his own views are consistent with his internal model of the world .
Someone who explains that while the Church did create the university system ; and continues to fund science to this day ; while also allowing that at times in the past it has been used for political ends is probably someone with a very educated opinion .
He 's demonstrated the ability to deal with concepts in varying degrees , and to understand the difference between a * political * objection , and a doctrinal one .
In much the same way that there exist Creationists who refuse to accept any evidence contrary to their opinion , even to the point of committing logical fallacies , there exist individuals who really do n't read history , and just blindly accept whatever they 've been told .
Worse , they often repeat things which are provably false , which - aside from the damage done to the Church - call into question their ability to think rationally and perform rigorous analysis .
The Galileo fiasco - that is , the belief that the Church is somehow anti-science because of what happened to Galileo - is an interesting teaching moment .
The outworn argument against Creationists , Flat-Earthers , Global-Warming deniers , etc... has always been that science is objective , dispassionate .
And yet , in the Galileo fiasco , you have people who in matters of science are otherwise logical and objective , repeating something they know ( or should know ) is false .
Interesting . It seems the failings of human nature apply to everyone , after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
further evidence against Aristotelian Cosmology, which led to problems with the Roman Catholic Church, etc...

I know that people who repeat such things are only showing their ignorance (heck, even Wikipedia explains the controversy better), but I feel this lie gets repeated often enough that it should be addressed.
According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
 
In its opening passage, Galileo and Guiducci's Discourse gratuitously insulted the Jesuit Christopher Scheiner,[56] and various uncomplimentary remarks about the professors of the Collegio Romano were scattered throughout the work.
[57] The Jesuits were offended,[58] and Grassi soon replied with a polemical tract of his own, The Astronomical and Philosophical Balance ,[59] under the pseudonym Lothario Sarsio Sigensano,[60] purporting to be one of his own pupils.
And later:

Pope Urban VIII personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book, 

Indeed, it was Galileo's political antagonism, not his ideas, that got him trouble.
Imagine that.
There is a very simple question one can ask to determine if a someone is genuinely objective and dispassionate in their search for the truth:
 Does the Church suppress science?
The manner in which this question is answered is often quite revealing:
 Someone with no critical thinking skills, nor ability to understand anything but absolutes, will almost invariably mention Galileo and blame the Church for suppressing science and free thought.
The irony, of course, is that it's a moot point: it hardly matters if free thought is suppressed when the speaker goes to considerable lengths to avoid doing so.
Even though he may publicly laud free inquiry and study, he simply dismisses any source which disagrees with his predisposed notions of the world.
Someone who answers that "there's no proof" that Galileo is correct is probably heading off on a tangent which will end in a discussion about evolution.
Again, probably not a very insightful individual, but at least his own views are consistent with his internal model of the world.
Someone who explains that while the Church did create the university system; and continues to fund science to this day; while also allowing that at times in the past it has been used for political ends is probably someone with a very educated opinion.
He's demonstrated the ability to deal with concepts in varying degrees, and to understand the difference between a *political* objection, and a doctrinal one.
In much the same way that there exist Creationists who refuse to accept any evidence contrary to their opinion, even to the point of committing logical fallacies, there exist individuals who really don't read history, and just blindly accept whatever they've been told.
Worse, they often repeat things which are provably false, which - aside from the damage done to the Church - call into question their ability to think rationally and perform rigorous analysis.
The Galileo fiasco - that is, the belief that the Church is somehow anti-science because of what happened to Galileo - is an interesting teaching moment.
The outworn argument against Creationists, Flat-Earthers, Global-Warming deniers, etc... has always been that science is objective, dispassionate.
And yet, in the Galileo fiasco, you have people who in matters of science are otherwise logical and objective, repeating something they know (or should know) is false.
Interesting.

It seems the failings of human nature apply to everyone, after all.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688750</id>
	<title>Re:Let's just get this out of the way, shall we?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262864520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irp8CNj9qBI" title="youtube.com">Galileo!</a> [youtube.com] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Galileo !
[ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Galileo!
[youtube.com] </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30691452</id>
	<title>Re:The church isn't a bunch of biblical literalist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262893800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good points since the Catholic Church is often criticized for not adhering to the Sola Scriptura philosophy.  But the Bible in Latin a problem?  What was the language of science/education at the time?  Copernicus was the latinazation of Kopernek, a Polish sir name.  Most educated people at the time conversed and corresponded in Latin and were perfectly capable of reading and understanding a Latin Bible.  The rest of the populace  were, by and large, illiterate at the time and printing books was still expensive.</p><p>Incidentally, we eat fish on Fridays because Fridays are a day of penance.   In the U.S., the bishops chose to remove the abstinence from meat on Fridays but Catholics are still expected to perform some sort of penance on Fridays (and with what's happened lately, there's a lot of penance that needs to be done).</p><p>Finally, I have to mention a hero of mine.  Father Gregor "Father of Genetics" Mendel, an Augustine priest who's study of plant inheritance spawned the science of genetics.  The Church never condemned his findings, however, one can see how the simplest desire to understand nature can lead to pure evil.   The discovery of genetics allowed us to to create that most evil movement called eugenics.  So even the best science can go bad when in the wrong hands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good points since the Catholic Church is often criticized for not adhering to the Sola Scriptura philosophy .
But the Bible in Latin a problem ?
What was the language of science/education at the time ?
Copernicus was the latinazation of Kopernek , a Polish sir name .
Most educated people at the time conversed and corresponded in Latin and were perfectly capable of reading and understanding a Latin Bible .
The rest of the populace were , by and large , illiterate at the time and printing books was still expensive.Incidentally , we eat fish on Fridays because Fridays are a day of penance .
In the U.S. , the bishops chose to remove the abstinence from meat on Fridays but Catholics are still expected to perform some sort of penance on Fridays ( and with what 's happened lately , there 's a lot of penance that needs to be done ) .Finally , I have to mention a hero of mine .
Father Gregor " Father of Genetics " Mendel , an Augustine priest who 's study of plant inheritance spawned the science of genetics .
The Church never condemned his findings , however , one can see how the simplest desire to understand nature can lead to pure evil .
The discovery of genetics allowed us to to create that most evil movement called eugenics .
So even the best science can go bad when in the wrong hands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good points since the Catholic Church is often criticized for not adhering to the Sola Scriptura philosophy.
But the Bible in Latin a problem?
What was the language of science/education at the time?
Copernicus was the latinazation of Kopernek, a Polish sir name.
Most educated people at the time conversed and corresponded in Latin and were perfectly capable of reading and understanding a Latin Bible.
The rest of the populace  were, by and large, illiterate at the time and printing books was still expensive.Incidentally, we eat fish on Fridays because Fridays are a day of penance.
In the U.S., the bishops chose to remove the abstinence from meat on Fridays but Catholics are still expected to perform some sort of penance on Fridays (and with what's happened lately, there's a lot of penance that needs to be done).Finally, I have to mention a hero of mine.
Father Gregor "Father of Genetics" Mendel, an Augustine priest who's study of plant inheritance spawned the science of genetics.
The Church never condemned his findings, however, one can see how the simplest desire to understand nature can lead to pure evil.
The discovery of genetics allowed us to to create that most evil movement called eugenics.
So even the best science can go bad when in the wrong hands.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30692338</id>
	<title>Re:A little ignorance never hurt anyone, eh?</title>
	<author>catmistake</author>
	<datestamp>1262948340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Copernicus had proposed a heliocentric system almost a century before Galileo, and yet suffered no persecution by the Church because of it.</p></div><p>
Ah, but this is only because Copernicus, a devoute Catholic, feared and respected the Church, recognized that his theories (which actually others had suggested before, though none would take credit (blame) for them) would be disruptive, and cleverly published his theories posthumously. Had he been alive, the Church surely would have killed him.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Copernicus had proposed a heliocentric system almost a century before Galileo , and yet suffered no persecution by the Church because of it .
Ah , but this is only because Copernicus , a devoute Catholic , feared and respected the Church , recognized that his theories ( which actually others had suggested before , though none would take credit ( blame ) for them ) would be disruptive , and cleverly published his theories posthumously .
Had he been alive , the Church surely would have killed him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copernicus had proposed a heliocentric system almost a century before Galileo, and yet suffered no persecution by the Church because of it.
Ah, but this is only because Copernicus, a devoute Catholic, feared and respected the Church, recognized that his theories (which actually others had suggested before, though none would take credit (blame) for them) would be disruptive, and cleverly published his theories posthumously.
Had he been alive, the Church surely would have killed him.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30691002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689364</id>
	<title>history</title>
	<author>TheSHAD0W</author>
	<datestamp>1262869020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>OK, the moons themselves are much older...</i></p><p>Oh really?  How do you know?  Until they were observed, they might have been indeterminate.  Paging Schrodinger!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , the moons themselves are much older...Oh really ?
How do you know ?
Until they were observed , they might have been indeterminate .
Paging Schrodinger !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, the moons themselves are much older...Oh really?
How do you know?
Until they were observed, they might have been indeterminate.
Paging Schrodinger!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690288</id>
	<title>400 Years Ago, Galileo Discovered Four Jovian Moon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262878020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And the G-Spot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the G-Spot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the G-Spot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690082</id>
	<title>Erh... I'm no astronomer, but...</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1262875920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to admit I never looked through a telescope (well, aside of those times in college but it wasn't really pointed at the sky at that moment...), but doesn't something like that require observation over some time? Or are those moons so large that you immediately notice them as moons and not as some sort of stars that might not be visible without? Else I'd expect Gallileo to monitor them for some time, notice that they move around Jupiter and thus conclude that they must be moons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to admit I never looked through a telescope ( well , aside of those times in college but it was n't really pointed at the sky at that moment... ) , but does n't something like that require observation over some time ?
Or are those moons so large that you immediately notice them as moons and not as some sort of stars that might not be visible without ?
Else I 'd expect Gallileo to monitor them for some time , notice that they move around Jupiter and thus conclude that they must be moons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to admit I never looked through a telescope (well, aside of those times in college but it wasn't really pointed at the sky at that moment...), but doesn't something like that require observation over some time?
Or are those moons so large that you immediately notice them as moons and not as some sort of stars that might not be visible without?
Else I'd expect Gallileo to monitor them for some time, notice that they move around Jupiter and thus conclude that they must be moons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689044</id>
	<title>Re:Let's just get this out of the way, shall we?</title>
	<author>bloodninja</author>
	<datestamp>1262866560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Galileo!</p></div><p>No, Phil Plait!<br>The summary is a rip off of the Bad Astronomy blog: <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/01/07/the-galilean-revolution-400-years-later/" title="discovermagazine.com">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/01/07/the-galilean-revolution-400-years-later/</a> [discovermagazine.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Galileo ! No , Phil Plait ! The summary is a rip off of the Bad Astronomy blog : http : //blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/01/07/the-galilean-revolution-400-years-later/ [ discovermagazine.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Galileo!No, Phil Plait!The summary is a rip off of the Bad Astronomy blog: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/01/07/the-galilean-revolution-400-years-later/ [discovermagazine.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688902</id>
	<title>Cue the wrath of amazing atheists</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262865600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is a very modern thinking by a very small group of churches to believe that science is anything more than a spiritually commendable exposition of the motion of the finger of God. And it is a very tedious and oft repeated error of atheist militants that religions are antiscience.</p><p>For the hundredth time: the Church did not like Galileo because he mocked the powerful leaders of the Church. Throw a shoe at George, draw Mrs Barack as a monkey, and see how long it is before your mouth shut or your abdomen injured.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a very modern thinking by a very small group of churches to believe that science is anything more than a spiritually commendable exposition of the motion of the finger of God .
And it is a very tedious and oft repeated error of atheist militants that religions are antiscience.For the hundredth time : the Church did not like Galileo because he mocked the powerful leaders of the Church .
Throw a shoe at George , draw Mrs Barack as a monkey , and see how long it is before your mouth shut or your abdomen injured .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a very modern thinking by a very small group of churches to believe that science is anything more than a spiritually commendable exposition of the motion of the finger of God.
And it is a very tedious and oft repeated error of atheist militants that religions are antiscience.For the hundredth time: the Church did not like Galileo because he mocked the powerful leaders of the Church.
Throw a shoe at George, draw Mrs Barack as a monkey, and see how long it is before your mouth shut or your abdomen injured.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688674</id>
	<title>Great anniversary!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262864220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yay! I'll drink to that!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yay !
I 'll drink to that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yay!
I'll drink to that!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688772</id>
	<title>haha</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262864700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"By Jove, another moon!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" By Jove , another moon !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"By Jove, another moon!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689602</id>
	<title>Re:Well!</title>
	<author>crackspackle</author>
	<datestamp>1262871120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
I've just discovered my own Jovian Moon !!!

* slaps naked butt in mirror after three chili dogs with beans and sauerkraut *</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've just discovered my own Jovian Moon ! ! !
* slaps naked butt in mirror after three chili dogs with beans and sauerkraut *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I've just discovered my own Jovian Moon !!!
* slaps naked butt in mirror after three chili dogs with beans and sauerkraut *</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30694190</id>
	<title>Re:The church isn't a bunch of biblical literalist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262965380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The pope has stock in Spanish fishing fleets?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The pope has stock in Spanish fishing fleets ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The pope has stock in Spanish fishing fleets?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689728</id>
	<title>Re:A little ignorance never hurt anyone, eh?</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1262872200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've read extensively on the Galileo incident and I see no reason to change the the long accepted wisdom that it is a classic case of conflict between religious dogma and authority against scientific investigation..</p><p>I have however encountered quite a large number of people who have been persuaded by recent post-modernist type logic that in fact no; it was perfect alright and indeed <i>correct</i> for the church to threaten to burn Galileo alive because either/or<br>1) He was rude,<br>2) His finding would overturn centuries of dogma<br>3) Galileo's concrete observations were not good enough because he lacked the mathematics to describe them</p><p>Needless to say, I find such arguments unconvincing.</p><p>The Catholic church suppressed science. They threatened to kill Galileo and forced him to retract his theories. People often forget that last part. Galileo went to his grave holding that the Sun went around the Earth. You don't believe me? There's an official confession signed by him to that effect? You think he privately though otherwise? Tough; that confession is the end of the story. The church got what it wanted. Galileo and his works were suppressed.</p><p>I don't know exactly where this new apologia for the churches behaviour in the Galileo affair comes from, but I suspect it has more to do with US Culture Wars than actual critical thinking. Ironic, as for years the Galileo affair was a classic incident that Protestants held as demonstrating the abusive and backward position of the Catholic church. It's unfortunate that the relevant Wikipedia pages have been dragged into such revisionism, and in so doing have given it far more credit than it deserves. That's just another problem with Wikipedia and its monopoly on knowledge and viewpoints, but I'll leave that rant for another day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've read extensively on the Galileo incident and I see no reason to change the the long accepted wisdom that it is a classic case of conflict between religious dogma and authority against scientific investigation..I have however encountered quite a large number of people who have been persuaded by recent post-modernist type logic that in fact no ; it was perfect alright and indeed correct for the church to threaten to burn Galileo alive because either/or1 ) He was rude,2 ) His finding would overturn centuries of dogma3 ) Galileo 's concrete observations were not good enough because he lacked the mathematics to describe themNeedless to say , I find such arguments unconvincing.The Catholic church suppressed science .
They threatened to kill Galileo and forced him to retract his theories .
People often forget that last part .
Galileo went to his grave holding that the Sun went around the Earth .
You do n't believe me ?
There 's an official confession signed by him to that effect ?
You think he privately though otherwise ?
Tough ; that confession is the end of the story .
The church got what it wanted .
Galileo and his works were suppressed.I do n't know exactly where this new apologia for the churches behaviour in the Galileo affair comes from , but I suspect it has more to do with US Culture Wars than actual critical thinking .
Ironic , as for years the Galileo affair was a classic incident that Protestants held as demonstrating the abusive and backward position of the Catholic church .
It 's unfortunate that the relevant Wikipedia pages have been dragged into such revisionism , and in so doing have given it far more credit than it deserves .
That 's just another problem with Wikipedia and its monopoly on knowledge and viewpoints , but I 'll leave that rant for another day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've read extensively on the Galileo incident and I see no reason to change the the long accepted wisdom that it is a classic case of conflict between religious dogma and authority against scientific investigation..I have however encountered quite a large number of people who have been persuaded by recent post-modernist type logic that in fact no; it was perfect alright and indeed correct for the church to threaten to burn Galileo alive because either/or1) He was rude,2) His finding would overturn centuries of dogma3) Galileo's concrete observations were not good enough because he lacked the mathematics to describe themNeedless to say, I find such arguments unconvincing.The Catholic church suppressed science.
They threatened to kill Galileo and forced him to retract his theories.
People often forget that last part.
Galileo went to his grave holding that the Sun went around the Earth.
You don't believe me?
There's an official confession signed by him to that effect?
You think he privately though otherwise?
Tough; that confession is the end of the story.
The church got what it wanted.
Galileo and his works were suppressed.I don't know exactly where this new apologia for the churches behaviour in the Galileo affair comes from, but I suspect it has more to do with US Culture Wars than actual critical thinking.
Ironic, as for years the Galileo affair was a classic incident that Protestants held as demonstrating the abusive and backward position of the Catholic church.
It's unfortunate that the relevant Wikipedia pages have been dragged into such revisionism, and in so doing have given it far more credit than it deserves.
That's just another problem with Wikipedia and its monopoly on knowledge and viewpoints, but I'll leave that rant for another day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690544</id>
	<title>Unbalanced argument</title>
	<author>Roger W Moore</author>
	<datestamp>1262881200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And later:
<br>
<em>Pope Urban VIII personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book,</em>
<br>
Indeed, it was Galileo's political antagonism, not his ideas, that got him trouble. Imagine that.</p></div><p>Hmmm.....you might have wanted to include the rest of that sentence you quoted from the article:
<br> <br>
<em>Pope Urban VIII personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book, <b>and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism.</b> </em>
<br> <br>
Sorry but forbidding the advocation of scientific knowledge is pretty much anti-science. Galileo may well not have helped himself by being somewhat politically antagonistic but the overwhelming picture is that the Catholic church was happy to support science as long as science did not come up with any discoveries which went against what they decided was the "truth". That would be like saying that you support freedom of speech as long as I don't say anything which you disagree with....it really isn't support at all. The church certainly supported education but their support of science is far more questionable.
<br> <br>
Of course the Catholic church, for the most part, is not like that now and does support and listen to scientists - indeed as a physicist I've often thought it would be really interesting to have a chat with one of the astronomers from the Vatican observatory to hear their take on science. But that does not mean that in the past they were so enlightened.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And later : Pope Urban VIII personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book , Indeed , it was Galileo 's political antagonism , not his ideas , that got him trouble .
Imagine that.Hmmm.....you might have wanted to include the rest of that sentence you quoted from the article : Pope Urban VIII personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book , and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism .
Sorry but forbidding the advocation of scientific knowledge is pretty much anti-science .
Galileo may well not have helped himself by being somewhat politically antagonistic but the overwhelming picture is that the Catholic church was happy to support science as long as science did not come up with any discoveries which went against what they decided was the " truth " .
That would be like saying that you support freedom of speech as long as I do n't say anything which you disagree with....it really is n't support at all .
The church certainly supported education but their support of science is far more questionable .
Of course the Catholic church , for the most part , is not like that now and does support and listen to scientists - indeed as a physicist I 've often thought it would be really interesting to have a chat with one of the astronomers from the Vatican observatory to hear their take on science .
But that does not mean that in the past they were so enlightened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And later:

Pope Urban VIII personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book,

Indeed, it was Galileo's political antagonism, not his ideas, that got him trouble.
Imagine that.Hmmm.....you might have wanted to include the rest of that sentence you quoted from the article:
 
Pope Urban VIII personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism.
Sorry but forbidding the advocation of scientific knowledge is pretty much anti-science.
Galileo may well not have helped himself by being somewhat politically antagonistic but the overwhelming picture is that the Catholic church was happy to support science as long as science did not come up with any discoveries which went against what they decided was the "truth".
That would be like saying that you support freedom of speech as long as I don't say anything which you disagree with....it really isn't support at all.
The church certainly supported education but their support of science is far more questionable.
Of course the Catholic church, for the most part, is not like that now and does support and listen to scientists - indeed as a physicist I've often thought it would be really interesting to have a chat with one of the astronomers from the Vatican observatory to hear their take on science.
But that does not mean that in the past they were so enlightened.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690320</id>
	<title>Re:A little ignorance never hurt anyone, eh?</title>
	<author>CheshireCatCO</author>
	<datestamp>1262878440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you, this exact issue has been pissing me off for quite a while now.  There's been a rather substantial movement to retroactive validate the Church's behavior toward Galileo for about a decade (maybe more, but that's how long I've been watching it).  Galileo wasn't the most politically astute or generous person to his enemies, but he also didn't deserve the stuff the Church sent at him.  The folio with his Inquisition record, for example, was clearly tampered with, with documents clearly added into places to make them appear older than they were.</p><p>In the end, Galileo's only defense should have been that his book was allowed by the Church censors. If there had been anything objectionable in it, they should have caught it and shot the book down.  Failing that, they should have taken the blame, not Galileo.</p><p>As for making Simplicio a parody of Pope Urban, the only thing I've ever heard of that indicates that this was the goal was one quote from Urban put into Simplicio's* mouth.  One quote a parody does not make; it's more likely (in my mind, anyway) that Galileo was trying to address one of Urban's objections and was clumsy in how he presented it.  (On the other hand, as soon as it was found in the book, Galileo's enemies in the Church went to the Pope to decry Galileo.  Note that the Pope didn't get offended on his own, he was goaded into offense.)</p><p>* Also note that the name was based on a real historical figure's name.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you , this exact issue has been pissing me off for quite a while now .
There 's been a rather substantial movement to retroactive validate the Church 's behavior toward Galileo for about a decade ( maybe more , but that 's how long I 've been watching it ) .
Galileo was n't the most politically astute or generous person to his enemies , but he also did n't deserve the stuff the Church sent at him .
The folio with his Inquisition record , for example , was clearly tampered with , with documents clearly added into places to make them appear older than they were.In the end , Galileo 's only defense should have been that his book was allowed by the Church censors .
If there had been anything objectionable in it , they should have caught it and shot the book down .
Failing that , they should have taken the blame , not Galileo.As for making Simplicio a parody of Pope Urban , the only thing I 've ever heard of that indicates that this was the goal was one quote from Urban put into Simplicio 's * mouth .
One quote a parody does not make ; it 's more likely ( in my mind , anyway ) that Galileo was trying to address one of Urban 's objections and was clumsy in how he presented it .
( On the other hand , as soon as it was found in the book , Galileo 's enemies in the Church went to the Pope to decry Galileo .
Note that the Pope did n't get offended on his own , he was goaded into offense .
) * Also note that the name was based on a real historical figure 's name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you, this exact issue has been pissing me off for quite a while now.
There's been a rather substantial movement to retroactive validate the Church's behavior toward Galileo for about a decade (maybe more, but that's how long I've been watching it).
Galileo wasn't the most politically astute or generous person to his enemies, but he also didn't deserve the stuff the Church sent at him.
The folio with his Inquisition record, for example, was clearly tampered with, with documents clearly added into places to make them appear older than they were.In the end, Galileo's only defense should have been that his book was allowed by the Church censors.
If there had been anything objectionable in it, they should have caught it and shot the book down.
Failing that, they should have taken the blame, not Galileo.As for making Simplicio a parody of Pope Urban, the only thing I've ever heard of that indicates that this was the goal was one quote from Urban put into Simplicio's* mouth.
One quote a parody does not make; it's more likely (in my mind, anyway) that Galileo was trying to address one of Urban's objections and was clumsy in how he presented it.
(On the other hand, as soon as it was found in the book, Galileo's enemies in the Church went to the Pope to decry Galileo.
Note that the Pope didn't get offended on his own, he was goaded into offense.
)* Also note that the name was based on a real historical figure's name.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688910</id>
	<title>Church Mod</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262865720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Also, making fun of any 17th-century Italian nobleman (Pope or otherwise) by naming a character in your book "Simpleton" (Simplicio)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... that's the just sort of social/political ineptitude that's going to get [a scientist] into serious trouble...</p></div></blockquote><p>Back then, the mod system locked you up, not just gave you a <b> <tt>-1 troll</tt> </b></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , making fun of any 17th-century Italian nobleman ( Pope or otherwise ) by naming a character in your book " Simpleton " ( Simplicio ) ... that 's the just sort of social/political ineptitude that 's going to get [ a scientist ] into serious trouble...Back then , the mod system locked you up , not just gave you a -1 troll</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, making fun of any 17th-century Italian nobleman (Pope or otherwise) by naming a character in your book "Simpleton" (Simplicio) ... that's the just sort of social/political ineptitude that's going to get [a scientist] into serious trouble...Back then, the mod system locked you up, not just gave you a  -1 troll 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688766</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2114229_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2114229_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2114229_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2114229_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2114229_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2114229_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2114229_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2114229_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30695738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2114229_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2114229_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2114229_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2114229_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30692338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30691002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2114229_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30694398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2114229_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2114229_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2114229_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2114229_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30702718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2114229_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30694190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2114229_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2114229_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30693988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2114229_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2114229_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2114229_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2114229_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30691114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2114229_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2114229_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2114229_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2114229_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2114229_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30692112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2114229_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30691452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2114229_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2114229_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2114229_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2114229_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2114229_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2114229_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2114229_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30692356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2114229.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688902
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2114229.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688718
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690342
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2114229.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689728
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30691002
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30692338
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690926
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30692112
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2114229.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2114229.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688964
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30692356
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688984
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690164
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30693988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688882
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2114229.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688750
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30691114
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690612
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2114229.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689114
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2114229.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688772
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2114229.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30691452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30694190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30694398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30695738
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2114229.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2114229.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30702718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690230
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2114229.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2114229.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30689312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30690946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2114229.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2114229.30688674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
