<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_22_1555257</id>
	<title>Court Rules WHOIS Privacy Illegal For Spammers</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1264181940000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Unequivocal writes <i>"Spammers hiding behind a WHOIS privacy service have been <a href="http://sedo.com/links/showlinks.php3?Id=2575">found in violation of CAN-SPAM</a>. It probably won't stop other spammers from hiding (what can?), but at least it adds another arrow in the legal quiver for skewering the bottom feeders. Quoting from the article: 'A recent decision by the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has determined that using WHOIS privacy on domains may be considered "material falsification" under federal law... Although the ruling does not make use of WHOIS privacy illegal, it does serve as a clear message from the court that coupling the use of privacy services with intentional spamming will likely result in a violation of the CAN-SPAM act. This is an important decision that members of the domain community should refer to prior to utilizing a privacy shield.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unequivocal writes " Spammers hiding behind a WHOIS privacy service have been found in violation of CAN-SPAM .
It probably wo n't stop other spammers from hiding ( what can ?
) , but at least it adds another arrow in the legal quiver for skewering the bottom feeders .
Quoting from the article : 'A recent decision by the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has determined that using WHOIS privacy on domains may be considered " material falsification " under federal law... Although the ruling does not make use of WHOIS privacy illegal , it does serve as a clear message from the court that coupling the use of privacy services with intentional spamming will likely result in a violation of the CAN-SPAM act .
This is an important decision that members of the domain community should refer to prior to utilizing a privacy shield .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unequivocal writes "Spammers hiding behind a WHOIS privacy service have been found in violation of CAN-SPAM.
It probably won't stop other spammers from hiding (what can?
), but at least it adds another arrow in the legal quiver for skewering the bottom feeders.
Quoting from the article: 'A recent decision by the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has determined that using WHOIS privacy on domains may be considered "material falsification" under federal law... Although the ruling does not make use of WHOIS privacy illegal, it does serve as a clear message from the court that coupling the use of privacy services with intentional spamming will likely result in a violation of the CAN-SPAM act.
This is an important decision that members of the domain community should refer to prior to utilizing a privacy shield.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30863320</id>
	<title>Re:This is a good step but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264153980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Spam is ultimately an economic problem. As long as spam remains highly profitiable spamming will continue.</p></div><p>Indeed. Track the problem down at the source. The victims need to scared into not falling for *anything* that comes by email. If anybody is caught of buying spam-advertised products, they should be beheaded publicly, after being dragged through the town streets. That'll stop the spam. You can't scare the spammers, because like all criminals, they don't believe they'll get caught. But you can scare the potential customers away!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Spam is ultimately an economic problem .
As long as spam remains highly profitiable spamming will continue.Indeed .
Track the problem down at the source .
The victims need to scared into not falling for * anything * that comes by email .
If anybody is caught of buying spam-advertised products , they should be beheaded publicly , after being dragged through the town streets .
That 'll stop the spam .
You ca n't scare the spammers , because like all criminals , they do n't believe they 'll get caught .
But you can scare the potential customers away !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spam is ultimately an economic problem.
As long as spam remains highly profitiable spamming will continue.Indeed.
Track the problem down at the source.
The victims need to scared into not falling for *anything* that comes by email.
If anybody is caught of buying spam-advertised products, they should be beheaded publicly, after being dragged through the town streets.
That'll stop the spam.
You can't scare the spammers, because like all criminals, they don't believe they'll get caught.
But you can scare the potential customers away!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862704</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm...</title>
	<author>ArundelCastle</author>
	<datestamp>1264193460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It seems like there's some kind of insightful point to be made here, but I'm not sure what it is.</p></div><p>It's what scientists have been saying for decades (likely longer, but I tend to mark splitting the atom as a key event in science philosophy.)</p><p>\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ itself is not inherently bad, but by human ingenuity it can always be used to an end that is seen as bad.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems like there 's some kind of insightful point to be made here , but I 'm not sure what it is.It 's what scientists have been saying for decades ( likely longer , but I tend to mark splitting the atom as a key event in science philosophy .
) \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ itself is not inherently bad , but by human ingenuity it can always be used to an end that is seen as bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems like there's some kind of insightful point to be made here, but I'm not sure what it is.It's what scientists have been saying for decades (likely longer, but I tend to mark splitting the atom as a key event in science philosophy.
)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ itself is not inherently bad, but by human ingenuity it can always be used to an end that is seen as bad.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862302</id>
	<title>Re:The first amendment is dead and buried...</title>
	<author>sabt-pestnu</author>
	<datestamp>1264191180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; It isn't censorship to restrict time, plane and manner of speech. Thus, for example, saying you can't scream your views at 2 AM in a residential neighborhood isn't censorship by any reasonable definition.</p><p>So... <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free\_speech\_zone" title="wikipedia.org">Free Speech Zones</a> [wikipedia.org] are not censorship?  Perhaps you are right, but only in the way they are implemented.</p><p>That is, selectively.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; It is n't censorship to restrict time , plane and manner of speech .
Thus , for example , saying you ca n't scream your views at 2 AM in a residential neighborhood is n't censorship by any reasonable definition.So... Free Speech Zones [ wikipedia.org ] are not censorship ?
Perhaps you are right , but only in the way they are implemented.That is , selectively .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; It isn't censorship to restrict time, plane and manner of speech.
Thus, for example, saying you can't scream your views at 2 AM in a residential neighborhood isn't censorship by any reasonable definition.So... Free Speech Zones [wikipedia.org] are not censorship?
Perhaps you are right, but only in the way they are implemented.That is, selectively.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861438</id>
	<title>SPAM contents still a secret</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264185720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ingredients for SPAM still can legally remain hidden</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ingredients for SPAM still can legally remain hidden</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ingredients for SPAM still can legally remain hidden</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862882</id>
	<title>Re:Conspiracy/aiding/abetting?</title>
	<author>Sentrion</author>
	<datestamp>1264151220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Held liable by whom?  PrivacyProtect.org is one such service.  They have a PO BOX in the Netherlands and they state boldly "all mail is refused."  This makes service of process for subpoenas and citations very difficult, unless you are suing in a Dutch court.  Remember, this is HOLLAND we're talking about!  Anything goes (prostitution, cannibis, cartoons of Mohammad, etc.), and they don't like to waste time enforcing laws or checking underwear for explosives.


This is the same idea behind offshore banking - if you have a bank in the US and get sued in the US, the winner of the suit can get a court order to have your funds taken from the bank.  The local sherrif literally visits the bank and levies the account.  If you lose a suit in the US but you keep your cash in the Cayman Islands, the Caribbean banker isn't going to care jack-squat about any US court order!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Held liable by whom ?
PrivacyProtect.org is one such service .
They have a PO BOX in the Netherlands and they state boldly " all mail is refused .
" This makes service of process for subpoenas and citations very difficult , unless you are suing in a Dutch court .
Remember , this is HOLLAND we 're talking about !
Anything goes ( prostitution , cannibis , cartoons of Mohammad , etc .
) , and they do n't like to waste time enforcing laws or checking underwear for explosives .
This is the same idea behind offshore banking - if you have a bank in the US and get sued in the US , the winner of the suit can get a court order to have your funds taken from the bank .
The local sherrif literally visits the bank and levies the account .
If you lose a suit in the US but you keep your cash in the Cayman Islands , the Caribbean banker is n't going to care jack-squat about any US court order !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Held liable by whom?
PrivacyProtect.org is one such service.
They have a PO BOX in the Netherlands and they state boldly "all mail is refused.
"  This makes service of process for subpoenas and citations very difficult, unless you are suing in a Dutch court.
Remember, this is HOLLAND we're talking about!
Anything goes (prostitution, cannibis, cartoons of Mohammad, etc.
), and they don't like to waste time enforcing laws or checking underwear for explosives.
This is the same idea behind offshore banking - if you have a bank in the US and get sued in the US, the winner of the suit can get a court order to have your funds taken from the bank.
The local sherrif literally visits the bank and levies the account.
If you lose a suit in the US but you keep your cash in the Cayman Islands, the Caribbean banker isn't going to care jack-squat about any US court order!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861710</id>
	<title>Re:The first amendment is dead and buried...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264187280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It isn't censorship to restrict time, plane and manner of speech. Thus, for example, saying you can't scream your views at 2 AM in a residential neighborhood isn't censorship by any reasonable definition. Similarly, anti-spam laws are not creating any free speech problem as long as they focus on the unsolicited nature of the message rather than the content. Moreover, there's a classical philosophical distinction between commercial and non-commercial speech (otherwise we wouldn't be able to restrict people from false advertising for example). Claiming that spam should be protected under free speech might feel like a fine, pro-free speech absolutist position to take, but really it is just not having any understanding of what we mean when we talk about free speech rights.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is n't censorship to restrict time , plane and manner of speech .
Thus , for example , saying you ca n't scream your views at 2 AM in a residential neighborhood is n't censorship by any reasonable definition .
Similarly , anti-spam laws are not creating any free speech problem as long as they focus on the unsolicited nature of the message rather than the content .
Moreover , there 's a classical philosophical distinction between commercial and non-commercial speech ( otherwise we would n't be able to restrict people from false advertising for example ) .
Claiming that spam should be protected under free speech might feel like a fine , pro-free speech absolutist position to take , but really it is just not having any understanding of what we mean when we talk about free speech rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It isn't censorship to restrict time, plane and manner of speech.
Thus, for example, saying you can't scream your views at 2 AM in a residential neighborhood isn't censorship by any reasonable definition.
Similarly, anti-spam laws are not creating any free speech problem as long as they focus on the unsolicited nature of the message rather than the content.
Moreover, there's a classical philosophical distinction between commercial and non-commercial speech (otherwise we wouldn't be able to restrict people from false advertising for example).
Claiming that spam should be protected under free speech might feel like a fine, pro-free speech absolutist position to take, but really it is just not having any understanding of what we mean when we talk about free speech rights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862354</id>
	<title>Meh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264191420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whats the point? - spammers use fake names and addresses anyway</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whats the point ?
- spammers use fake names and addresses anyway</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whats the point?
- spammers use fake names and addresses anyway</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861800</id>
	<title>Ain't it like anoder false flag?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264188060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ain't it like anoder false flag?<br>I mean what new civil rights are getting sucked up?<br>Do I get this right?  Forced WHOIS exposure?<br>What if you paid for privacy, and got hacked?<br>Could it be to shut down good people also?<br>my official opinion: I hate spam too, I think blacklists are the way but anyway...heh we're on the road to hell now..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ai n't it like anoder false flag ? I mean what new civil rights are getting sucked up ? Do I get this right ?
Forced WHOIS exposure ? What if you paid for privacy , and got hacked ? Could it be to shut down good people also ? my official opinion : I hate spam too , I think blacklists are the way but anyway...heh we 're on the road to hell now. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ain't it like anoder false flag?I mean what new civil rights are getting sucked up?Do I get this right?
Forced WHOIS exposure?What if you paid for privacy, and got hacked?Could it be to shut down good people also?my official opinion: I hate spam too, I think blacklists are the way but anyway...heh we're on the road to hell now..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861622</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264186620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>where is the +1 not-quite-insightful button?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>where is the + 1 not-quite-insightful button ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>where is the +1 not-quite-insightful button?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861658</id>
	<title>The first amendment is dead and buried...</title>
	<author>AlexLibman</author>
	<datestamp>1264186920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Natural Right to Freedom of Speech is needed precisely for unpopular speech such as "spam" and even "kiddy porn" - a canary in the coal mine for more egregious government assaults on your freedoms!</p><p>It is your responsibility to decide what means you use to communicate with other people, and if you choose to use a ridiculously poorly designed protocol like e-mail then it is your (or your e-mail hosting provider's) responsibility to control who connects to your mail servers and how messages are to be accepted or rejected.  There are many better technological solutions out there, and the CAN SPAM bull will only help proliferate the bad technologies at the expense of the good, while also hurting legitimate communication needs, and resulting in a corrupt and inefficient bureaucratic cesspool that will cost tax-victims billions!</p><p>Getting the government involved is the very worst thing you can do, and it has horrifying consequences down the road - spam today, other unpopular speech tomorrow, total tyrannical thought control the day after that!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Natural Right to Freedom of Speech is needed precisely for unpopular speech such as " spam " and even " kiddy porn " - a canary in the coal mine for more egregious government assaults on your freedoms ! It is your responsibility to decide what means you use to communicate with other people , and if you choose to use a ridiculously poorly designed protocol like e-mail then it is your ( or your e-mail hosting provider 's ) responsibility to control who connects to your mail servers and how messages are to be accepted or rejected .
There are many better technological solutions out there , and the CAN SPAM bull will only help proliferate the bad technologies at the expense of the good , while also hurting legitimate communication needs , and resulting in a corrupt and inefficient bureaucratic cesspool that will cost tax-victims billions ! Getting the government involved is the very worst thing you can do , and it has horrifying consequences down the road - spam today , other unpopular speech tomorrow , total tyrannical thought control the day after that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Natural Right to Freedom of Speech is needed precisely for unpopular speech such as "spam" and even "kiddy porn" - a canary in the coal mine for more egregious government assaults on your freedoms!It is your responsibility to decide what means you use to communicate with other people, and if you choose to use a ridiculously poorly designed protocol like e-mail then it is your (or your e-mail hosting provider's) responsibility to control who connects to your mail servers and how messages are to be accepted or rejected.
There are many better technological solutions out there, and the CAN SPAM bull will only help proliferate the bad technologies at the expense of the good, while also hurting legitimate communication needs, and resulting in a corrupt and inefficient bureaucratic cesspool that will cost tax-victims billions!Getting the government involved is the very worst thing you can do, and it has horrifying consequences down the road - spam today, other unpopular speech tomorrow, total tyrannical thought control the day after that!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861780</id>
	<title>Conspiracy/aiding/abetting?</title>
	<author>Thaelon</author>
	<datestamp>1264187940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Couldn't the WHOIS service, by hosting spammers, be held liable for criminal conspiracy or aiding and abetting?</p><p>Or at least investigated to determine if they were knowingly protecting spammers under one or both of those charges?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't the WHOIS service , by hosting spammers , be held liable for criminal conspiracy or aiding and abetting ? Or at least investigated to determine if they were knowingly protecting spammers under one or both of those charges ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't the WHOIS service, by hosting spammers, be held liable for criminal conspiracy or aiding and abetting?Or at least investigated to determine if they were knowingly protecting spammers under one or both of those charges?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862824</id>
	<title>Re:SPAM contents still a secret</title>
	<author>psithurism</author>
	<datestamp>1264150860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Meh, the whole article is irrelevant.  Once it gets to the Supreme Court, they'll just say we're restricting spammers' freedom of speech.</p></div><p>Freedom of speech is quite different from commercial speech.</p><p>If spammers are spamming to save the whales, they might get some coverage by the first amendment, but offering Tylenol as Viagra and pumping out misleading claims about your new acai product is commercial speech and not covered by the first amendment.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Meh , the whole article is irrelevant .
Once it gets to the Supreme Court , they 'll just say we 're restricting spammers ' freedom of speech.Freedom of speech is quite different from commercial speech.If spammers are spamming to save the whales , they might get some coverage by the first amendment , but offering Tylenol as Viagra and pumping out misleading claims about your new acai product is commercial speech and not covered by the first amendment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meh, the whole article is irrelevant.
Once it gets to the Supreme Court, they'll just say we're restricting spammers' freedom of speech.Freedom of speech is quite different from commercial speech.If spammers are spamming to save the whales, they might get some coverage by the first amendment, but offering Tylenol as Viagra and pumping out misleading claims about your new acai product is commercial speech and not covered by the first amendment.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861864</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm...</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1264188540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To complete the triangle, the justice department must use WHOIS privacy to protect itself from us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To complete the triangle , the justice department must use WHOIS privacy to protect itself from us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To complete the triangle, the justice department must use WHOIS privacy to protect itself from us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861634</id>
	<title>Re:Material falsification?</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1264186740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really. Some Viagra ads are legit, though the fact that I recieved it through solicitation of my email makes it spam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really .
Some Viagra ads are legit , though the fact that I recieved it through solicitation of my email makes it spam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.
Some Viagra ads are legit, though the fact that I recieved it through solicitation of my email makes it spam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861794</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm...</title>
	<author>greenguy</author>
	<datestamp>1264188000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>+0.5, Insightful</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 0.5 , Insightful</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+0.5, Insightful</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862380</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm...</title>
	<author>mackil</author>
	<datestamp>1264191600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is an excellent point. I use a proxy service for every domain I own just because of that reason. It gets expensive since it effectively doubles the cost, but it's kept my email clear for over a decade now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is an excellent point .
I use a proxy service for every domain I own just because of that reason .
It gets expensive since it effectively doubles the cost , but it 's kept my email clear for over a decade now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is an excellent point.
I use a proxy service for every domain I own just because of that reason.
It gets expensive since it effectively doubles the cost, but it's kept my email clear for over a decade now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30868526</id>
	<title>Re:Another simplistic libertarian answer</title>
	<author>KiloByte</author>
	<datestamp>1264248480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uhm, now that post was beyond puerile.  You take one part of libertarian motto, cut it, then use the second half <b>as your argument against the first half!</b>.</p><p>"Your right to swing your fist ends at my face." is exactly the point of libertarianism.  So repeating it against them over and over for an entire page means that you're, quoting to your own words, akin to a preschooler.  Otherwise, you would make an attempt to understand what you're criticising -- instead of calling people names.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhm , now that post was beyond puerile .
You take one part of libertarian motto , cut it , then use the second half as your argument against the first half ! .
" Your right to swing your fist ends at my face .
" is exactly the point of libertarianism .
So repeating it against them over and over for an entire page means that you 're , quoting to your own words , akin to a preschooler .
Otherwise , you would make an attempt to understand what you 're criticising -- instead of calling people names .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhm, now that post was beyond puerile.
You take one part of libertarian motto, cut it, then use the second half as your argument against the first half!.
"Your right to swing your fist ends at my face.
" is exactly the point of libertarianism.
So repeating it against them over and over for an entire page means that you're, quoting to your own words, akin to a preschooler.
Otherwise, you would make an attempt to understand what you're criticising -- instead of calling people names.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30866876</id>
	<title>You didn't get the memo</title>
	<author>billstewart</author>
	<datestamp>1264180260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A decade or more ago, "Libertarianism vs. Socialism" was the default discussion sink that all internet discussions eventually fell into.</p><p>But "Spam" has now replaced that - stick with the program.</p><p>Unless, of course, you were just coming here for abuse, in which case we can dredge up plenty of it for you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A decade or more ago , " Libertarianism vs. Socialism " was the default discussion sink that all internet discussions eventually fell into.But " Spam " has now replaced that - stick with the program.Unless , of course , you were just coming here for abuse , in which case we can dredge up plenty of it for you : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A decade or more ago, "Libertarianism vs. Socialism" was the default discussion sink that all internet discussions eventually fell into.But "Spam" has now replaced that - stick with the program.Unless, of course, you were just coming here for abuse, in which case we can dredge up plenty of it for you :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862750</id>
	<title>Another simplistic libertarian answer</title>
	<author>spun</author>
	<datestamp>1264193760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In libertarian la-la land, there is one freedom: to do whatever the hell I want without interference. But freedom isn't that cut and dried. My right to swing my fist ends at your face. Even on my property, I don't have the right to scream at the top of my lungs at 4 in the morning, because that impacts your freedoms.</p><p>Freedom isn't a simple thing. It isn't defined by imaginary and arbitrary natural rights. It is agreed upon and upheld by civilized people. For every freedom gained, there is a corresponding freedom lost, and so it is up to the group to decide what freedoms they are willing to trade for other more important freedoms. I, for instance, am willing to trade the freedom to scream at the top of my lungs at 4am, for the freedom to get a peaceful nights sleep.</p><p>And I don't give a rat's ass what YOU think your 'natural rights' entitle you to. Come into my neighborhood and start bellowing at 4am, and you will get a visit from the police, who will force you to stop, to protect my freedom. And THAT is as it should be, amongst civilized people.</p><p>Libertarians are akin to preschoolers, in that their idea of freedom is 'yer not the boss of me!' Well, the fact is that if you want to live in civilization, you have to let other people be the boss of you. If you don't like it, there is plenty of desolate wilderness where you can go be as free as you like, by yourself. But you DO NOT get to insert yourself into other people's lives and impose on them, claiming that if they try to stop you they are limiting your freedom. No, YOU are limiting THEIR freedom, and there are more of them than of you, so what they say goes. If you don't like it, well, there's always that lovely wilderness where you can be as free as you like without imposing on others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In libertarian la-la land , there is one freedom : to do whatever the hell I want without interference .
But freedom is n't that cut and dried .
My right to swing my fist ends at your face .
Even on my property , I do n't have the right to scream at the top of my lungs at 4 in the morning , because that impacts your freedoms.Freedom is n't a simple thing .
It is n't defined by imaginary and arbitrary natural rights .
It is agreed upon and upheld by civilized people .
For every freedom gained , there is a corresponding freedom lost , and so it is up to the group to decide what freedoms they are willing to trade for other more important freedoms .
I , for instance , am willing to trade the freedom to scream at the top of my lungs at 4am , for the freedom to get a peaceful nights sleep.And I do n't give a rat 's ass what YOU think your 'natural rights ' entitle you to .
Come into my neighborhood and start bellowing at 4am , and you will get a visit from the police , who will force you to stop , to protect my freedom .
And THAT is as it should be , amongst civilized people.Libertarians are akin to preschoolers , in that their idea of freedom is 'yer not the boss of me !
' Well , the fact is that if you want to live in civilization , you have to let other people be the boss of you .
If you do n't like it , there is plenty of desolate wilderness where you can go be as free as you like , by yourself .
But you DO NOT get to insert yourself into other people 's lives and impose on them , claiming that if they try to stop you they are limiting your freedom .
No , YOU are limiting THEIR freedom , and there are more of them than of you , so what they say goes .
If you do n't like it , well , there 's always that lovely wilderness where you can be as free as you like without imposing on others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In libertarian la-la land, there is one freedom: to do whatever the hell I want without interference.
But freedom isn't that cut and dried.
My right to swing my fist ends at your face.
Even on my property, I don't have the right to scream at the top of my lungs at 4 in the morning, because that impacts your freedoms.Freedom isn't a simple thing.
It isn't defined by imaginary and arbitrary natural rights.
It is agreed upon and upheld by civilized people.
For every freedom gained, there is a corresponding freedom lost, and so it is up to the group to decide what freedoms they are willing to trade for other more important freedoms.
I, for instance, am willing to trade the freedom to scream at the top of my lungs at 4am, for the freedom to get a peaceful nights sleep.And I don't give a rat's ass what YOU think your 'natural rights' entitle you to.
Come into my neighborhood and start bellowing at 4am, and you will get a visit from the police, who will force you to stop, to protect my freedom.
And THAT is as it should be, amongst civilized people.Libertarians are akin to preschoolers, in that their idea of freedom is 'yer not the boss of me!
' Well, the fact is that if you want to live in civilization, you have to let other people be the boss of you.
If you don't like it, there is plenty of desolate wilderness where you can go be as free as you like, by yourself.
But you DO NOT get to insert yourself into other people's lives and impose on them, claiming that if they try to stop you they are limiting your freedom.
No, YOU are limiting THEIR freedom, and there are more of them than of you, so what they say goes.
If you don't like it, well, there's always that lovely wilderness where you can be as free as you like without imposing on others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861484</id>
	<title>Material falsification?</title>
	<author>fatherjoecode</author>
	<datestamp>1264185960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>A spammer's entire business plan can be summed up a "material falsification", can't it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>A spammer 's entire business plan can be summed up a " material falsification " , ca n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A spammer's entire business plan can be summed up a "material falsification", can't it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862954</id>
	<title>Re:The first amendment is dead and buried...</title>
	<author>psithurism</author>
	<datestamp>1264151760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many times do I have to post this comment?</p><p>First, <b>Freedom of speech does not cover commercial speech.</b> If spammers are sending spam to save the whales they might get some protection, but as long as they are advertising they have to deal with the laws regarding commercial speech.</p><p>Second, freedom of speech does not give people the right to harass me. I don't want unsolicited advertising, I can get restraining orders on anyone in RL to stop them from following me around begging me to give them money. Do not call lists, spam acts, etc, are there to protect me from being harassed by companies doing this to me with modern technology. If spammers want to spam each other anonymously, they can go do that, but when they harass me, it is no longer within their rights.</p><p>Spam IMO is illegal, private companies and individuals do not have the resources to stop it and so we have government intervention. I for one am not worried about spammers rights and thank my government for protecting mine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many times do I have to post this comment ? First , Freedom of speech does not cover commercial speech .
If spammers are sending spam to save the whales they might get some protection , but as long as they are advertising they have to deal with the laws regarding commercial speech.Second , freedom of speech does not give people the right to harass me .
I do n't want unsolicited advertising , I can get restraining orders on anyone in RL to stop them from following me around begging me to give them money .
Do not call lists , spam acts , etc , are there to protect me from being harassed by companies doing this to me with modern technology .
If spammers want to spam each other anonymously , they can go do that , but when they harass me , it is no longer within their rights.Spam IMO is illegal , private companies and individuals do not have the resources to stop it and so we have government intervention .
I for one am not worried about spammers rights and thank my government for protecting mine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many times do I have to post this comment?First, Freedom of speech does not cover commercial speech.
If spammers are sending spam to save the whales they might get some protection, but as long as they are advertising they have to deal with the laws regarding commercial speech.Second, freedom of speech does not give people the right to harass me.
I don't want unsolicited advertising, I can get restraining orders on anyone in RL to stop them from following me around begging me to give them money.
Do not call lists, spam acts, etc, are there to protect me from being harassed by companies doing this to me with modern technology.
If spammers want to spam each other anonymously, they can go do that, but when they harass me, it is no longer within their rights.Spam IMO is illegal, private companies and individuals do not have the resources to stop it and so we have government intervention.
I for one am not worried about spammers rights and thank my government for protecting mine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862870</id>
	<title>Re:The first amendment is dead and buried...</title>
	<author>cayenne8</author>
	<datestamp>1264151100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Any good residential neighborhood should have contractual obligations placed on its residents as a prerequisite to moving in. Don't like the rules, live somewhere else."</i> <p>
Sign a contract before I move into a house somewhere?!?!</p><p>
I've never heard of such a thing...I see a house I like, I look at it...I buy it.</p><p>
Aside from the loan agreement..how can someone force you to sign a contract of behavior on your own land/home you own? What mention sounds discriminatory to me...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Any good residential neighborhood should have contractual obligations placed on its residents as a prerequisite to moving in .
Do n't like the rules , live somewhere else .
" Sign a contract before I move into a house somewhere ? ! ? !
I 've never heard of such a thing...I see a house I like , I look at it...I buy it .
Aside from the loan agreement..how can someone force you to sign a contract of behavior on your own land/home you own ?
What mention sounds discriminatory to me.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Any good residential neighborhood should have contractual obligations placed on its residents as a prerequisite to moving in.
Don't like the rules, live somewhere else.
" 
Sign a contract before I move into a house somewhere?!?!
I've never heard of such a thing...I see a house I like, I look at it...I buy it.
Aside from the loan agreement..how can someone force you to sign a contract of behavior on your own land/home you own?
What mention sounds discriminatory to me...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861620</id>
	<title>So does this mean Tim Burd is breaking the law?</title>
	<author>bluefoxlucid</author>
	<datestamp>1264186620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So is <a href="http://www.nsoco.org/" title="nsoco.org">Tim Burd</a> [nsoco.org] <a href="http://www.meetsafer.com/" title="meetsafer.com">breaking the law</a> [meetsafer.com]?  (warning: credit card scam site)</htmltext>
<tokenext>So is Tim Burd [ nsoco.org ] breaking the law [ meetsafer.com ] ?
( warning : credit card scam site )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So is Tim Burd [nsoco.org] breaking the law [meetsafer.com]?
(warning: credit card scam site)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30863088</id>
	<title>Again, completely useless because...</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1264152720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... many spamvertised, spamvertising, and spamming-affiliated domains are registered through registrars overseas.  And those overseas registrars (those who actually put <b>something</b> into the WHOIS fields) will either provide WHOIS obfuscation services to their customers, or it will be provided through another overseas company.  In the end, we can legislate this all we want, it won't mean squat to the spammers in other countries.<br> <br>
That said, there are likely other reasons why this is useless; this was just the first one that came to mind for me about 1x10^-3 seconds after I read the headline.  It is a shame that the judge who passed down this judgement was not knowledgeable enough to know the same.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... many spamvertised , spamvertising , and spamming-affiliated domains are registered through registrars overseas .
And those overseas registrars ( those who actually put something into the WHOIS fields ) will either provide WHOIS obfuscation services to their customers , or it will be provided through another overseas company .
In the end , we can legislate this all we want , it wo n't mean squat to the spammers in other countries .
That said , there are likely other reasons why this is useless ; this was just the first one that came to mind for me about 1x10 ^ -3 seconds after I read the headline .
It is a shame that the judge who passed down this judgement was not knowledgeable enough to know the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... many spamvertised, spamvertising, and spamming-affiliated domains are registered through registrars overseas.
And those overseas registrars (those who actually put something into the WHOIS fields) will either provide WHOIS obfuscation services to their customers, or it will be provided through another overseas company.
In the end, we can legislate this all we want, it won't mean squat to the spammers in other countries.
That said, there are likely other reasons why this is useless; this was just the first one that came to mind for me about 1x10^-3 seconds after I read the headline.
It is a shame that the judge who passed down this judgement was not knowledgeable enough to know the same.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862154</id>
	<title>Re:Need more of a deterrent than this</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1264190220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, that death penalty works well in Texas, doesn't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , that death penalty works well in Texas , does n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, that death penalty works well in Texas, doesn't it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862836</id>
	<title>Re:This is a good step but</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1264150920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You wrote:<br>&gt; As long as spam remains highly profitable spamming will continue.</p><p>No, as long as spam is \_perceived\_ as effective by enough people it will continue. Spam need not be commercial: harassing spam is quite effective. Spam need not actually be profitable: as long as enough fools pay someone to send it, or don't realize that what they are being is actually spam services, it will continue splashing into our spam folders at an amazing pace.</p><p>Spam is already being highly contained: given that well over 1/2 of all email is spam, and the fact that few of us see even 1\% of our incoming email as spam after all the filters in front of it, it's at manageable levels. And spam is much more easily defined and blocked than "cancer", which covers a wide range of naturally occurring and exposure caused diseases. Think of it more like malaria: we've found it difficult to get buy-in to actually drain the swamps and kill all the mosquitos in the world, but we do know how to treat it and to contain it. We just haven't devoted the effort.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You wrote : &gt; As long as spam remains highly profitable spamming will continue.No , as long as spam is \ _perceived \ _ as effective by enough people it will continue .
Spam need not be commercial : harassing spam is quite effective .
Spam need not actually be profitable : as long as enough fools pay someone to send it , or do n't realize that what they are being is actually spam services , it will continue splashing into our spam folders at an amazing pace.Spam is already being highly contained : given that well over 1/2 of all email is spam , and the fact that few of us see even 1 \ % of our incoming email as spam after all the filters in front of it , it 's at manageable levels .
And spam is much more easily defined and blocked than " cancer " , which covers a wide range of naturally occurring and exposure caused diseases .
Think of it more like malaria : we 've found it difficult to get buy-in to actually drain the swamps and kill all the mosquitos in the world , but we do know how to treat it and to contain it .
We just have n't devoted the effort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You wrote:&gt; As long as spam remains highly profitable spamming will continue.No, as long as spam is \_perceived\_ as effective by enough people it will continue.
Spam need not be commercial: harassing spam is quite effective.
Spam need not actually be profitable: as long as enough fools pay someone to send it, or don't realize that what they are being is actually spam services, it will continue splashing into our spam folders at an amazing pace.Spam is already being highly contained: given that well over 1/2 of all email is spam, and the fact that few of us see even 1\% of our incoming email as spam after all the filters in front of it, it's at manageable levels.
And spam is much more easily defined and blocked than "cancer", which covers a wide range of naturally occurring and exposure caused diseases.
Think of it more like malaria: we've found it difficult to get buy-in to actually drain the swamps and kill all the mosquitos in the world, but we do know how to treat it and to contain it.
We just haven't devoted the effort.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30865890</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm...</title>
	<author>bloobloo</author>
	<datestamp>1264169460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dreamhost don't charge for domain name privacy. (No affiliation beyond being a satisfied user)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dreamhost do n't charge for domain name privacy .
( No affiliation beyond being a satisfied user )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dreamhost don't charge for domain name privacy.
(No affiliation beyond being a satisfied user)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30863064</id>
	<title>Re:Problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264152540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the way we're going. Corporations are now "people."</p><p>From today's Reuters feed -</p><p>Landmark Supreme Court ruling allows corporate political cash.</p><p>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Corporations can spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, a landmark decision denounced by President Barack Obama for giving special interests more power.</p><p>Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the long-standing campaign finance limits violated constitutional free-speech rights of <b>corporations</b>.</p><p>Wintermute, where are you?</p><p>Meet the new Boss; same as the old Boss.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the way we 're going .
Corporations are now " people .
" From today 's Reuters feed -Landmark Supreme Court ruling allows corporate political cash.WASHINGTON ( Reuters ) - Corporations can spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress , the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday , a landmark decision denounced by President Barack Obama for giving special interests more power.Writing for the majority , Justice Anthony Kennedy said the long-standing campaign finance limits violated constitutional free-speech rights of corporations.Wintermute , where are you ? Meet the new Boss ; same as the old Boss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the way we're going.
Corporations are now "people.
"From today's Reuters feed -Landmark Supreme Court ruling allows corporate political cash.WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Corporations can spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, a landmark decision denounced by President Barack Obama for giving special interests more power.Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the long-standing campaign finance limits violated constitutional free-speech rights of corporations.Wintermute, where are you?Meet the new Boss; same as the old Boss.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862482</id>
	<title>Re:SPAM contents still a secret</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1264192140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Compuserve v Cyber Promotions (Samford Wallace) says otherwise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Compuserve v Cyber Promotions ( Samford Wallace ) says otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Compuserve v Cyber Promotions (Samford Wallace) says otherwise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862084</id>
	<title>Obligatory checklist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264189860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The court proposes a</p><p>( ) technical (X) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante</p><p>approach to fighting spam. The idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to this particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)<br>( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses<br>( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected<br>(X) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money<br>( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks<br>( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it<br>( ) Users of email will not put up with it<br>( ) Microsoft will not put up with it<br>( ) The police will not put up with it<br>(X) Requires too much cooperation from spammers<br>( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once<br>( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers<br>( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists<br>(X) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business</p><p>Specifically, the plan fails to account for:<br>( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it<br>( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email<br>(X) Open relays in foreign countries<br>( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses<br>(X) Asshats<br>(X) Jurisdictional problems<br>( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes<br>( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money<br>( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP<br>( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack<br>( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email<br>(X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes<br>( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches<br>(X) Extreme profitability of spam<br>(X) Joe jobs and/or identity theft<br>( ) Technically illiterate politicians<br>( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers<br>(X) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves<br>( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering<br>( ) Outlook</p><p>and the following philosophical objections may also apply:<br>(X) Ideas similar to this are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical<br>( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable<br>( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation<br>( ) Blacklists suck<br>( ) Whitelists suck<br>( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored<br>( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud<br>( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks<br>( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually<br>( ) Sending email should be free<br>( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?<br>( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses<br>(X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem<br>( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome<br>( ) I don't want the government reading my email<br>(X) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough</p><p>Furthermore, this is what I think about them:<br>(X) Sorry dudes, but I don't think this will work.<br>( ) This is a stupid idea, and they're a stupid people for suggesting it.<br>( ) Nice try, assh0les! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your houses down!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The court proposes a ( ) technical ( X ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilanteapproach to fighting spam .
The idea will not work .
Here is why it wo n't work .
( One or more of the following may apply to this particular idea , and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed .
) ( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( X ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we 'll be stuck with it ( ) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( X ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users can not afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers do n't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( X ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else 's career or businessSpecifically , the plan fails to account for : ( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( X ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( X ) Asshats ( X ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( X ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( X ) Extreme profitability of spam ( X ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( X ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlookand the following philosophical objections may also apply : ( X ) Ideas similar to this are easy to come up with , yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers ?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( X ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I do n't want the government reading my email ( X ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enoughFurthermore , this is what I think about them : ( X ) Sorry dudes , but I do n't think this will work .
( ) This is a stupid idea , and they 're a stupid people for suggesting it .
( ) Nice try , assh0les !
I 'm going to find out where you live and burn your houses down !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The court proposes a( ) technical (X) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilanteapproach to fighting spam.
The idea will not work.
Here is why it won't work.
(One or more of the following may apply to this particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.
)( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected(X) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it( ) Users of email will not put up with it( ) Microsoft will not put up with it( ) The police will not put up with it(X) Requires too much cooperation from spammers( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists(X) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or businessSpecifically, the plan fails to account for:( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email(X) Open relays in foreign countries( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses(X) Asshats(X) Jurisdictional problems( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email(X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches(X) Extreme profitability of spam(X) Joe jobs and/or identity theft( ) Technically illiterate politicians( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers(X) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering( ) Outlookand the following philosophical objections may also apply:(X) Ideas similar to this are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation( ) Blacklists suck( ) Whitelists suck( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually( ) Sending email should be free( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses(X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome( ) I don't want the government reading my email(X) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enoughFurthermore, this is what I think about them:(X) Sorry dudes, but I don't think this will work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and they're a stupid people for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0les!
I'm going to find out where you live and burn your houses down!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862602</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm...</title>
	<author>Pareto Efficient</author>
	<datestamp>1264192800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wish I could say this in less words but then most would ignore it, Otherwise<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...CORRECT!.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish I could say this in less words but then most would ignore it , Otherwise ...CORRECT ! .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish I could say this in less words but then most would ignore it, Otherwise ...CORRECT!.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30865242</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264164900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, the point is that we need to stop taking spammers to court and just shortcut the process by taking them out back and shooting them if their is even marginal evidence to prove they are doing it.</p><p>When you're punishment for them still results in a large net gain, they aren't going to give a flying fuck if you punish them.</p><p>The world has become filled with pussies who want to be nice rather than take action to fix problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , the point is that we need to stop taking spammers to court and just shortcut the process by taking them out back and shooting them if their is even marginal evidence to prove they are doing it.When you 're punishment for them still results in a large net gain , they are n't going to give a flying fuck if you punish them.The world has become filled with pussies who want to be nice rather than take action to fix problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, the point is that we need to stop taking spammers to court and just shortcut the process by taking them out back and shooting them if their is even marginal evidence to prove they are doing it.When you're punishment for them still results in a large net gain, they aren't going to give a flying fuck if you punish them.The world has become filled with pussies who want to be nice rather than take action to fix problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30865358</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory checklist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264165560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Make the punishment for spamming execution by public stoning, allow anyone who receives a spam to short cut the process and execute the offender without a court case, with the understanding that they must provide proof after the fact or suffer the same fate as the spammer.</p><p>There are ways to stop this sort of thing, even if mine are over zealous to say the least.  The reality of it is, too many people like yourself stand around and say 'it wont work' and saying that killing them won't work.</p><p>I assure you, if you kill enough of them, it will work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Make the punishment for spamming execution by public stoning , allow anyone who receives a spam to short cut the process and execute the offender without a court case , with the understanding that they must provide proof after the fact or suffer the same fate as the spammer.There are ways to stop this sort of thing , even if mine are over zealous to say the least .
The reality of it is , too many people like yourself stand around and say 'it wont work ' and saying that killing them wo n't work.I assure you , if you kill enough of them , it will work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make the punishment for spamming execution by public stoning, allow anyone who receives a spam to short cut the process and execute the offender without a court case, with the understanding that they must provide proof after the fact or suffer the same fate as the spammer.There are ways to stop this sort of thing, even if mine are over zealous to say the least.
The reality of it is, too many people like yourself stand around and say 'it wont work' and saying that killing them won't work.I assure you, if you kill enough of them, it will work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861478</id>
	<title>Re:SPAM contents still a secret</title>
	<author>Captain Splendid</author>
	<datestamp>1264185960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Meh, the whole article is irrelevant.  Once it gets to the Supreme Court, they'll just say we're restricting spammers' freedom of speech.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Meh , the whole article is irrelevant .
Once it gets to the Supreme Court , they 'll just say we 're restricting spammers ' freedom of speech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meh, the whole article is irrelevant.
Once it gets to the Supreme Court, they'll just say we're restricting spammers' freedom of speech.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861740</id>
	<title>and there goes legit privacy too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264187580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>oh joy cant we all just open the front door and be naked together</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>oh joy cant we all just open the front door and be naked together</tokentext>
<sentencetext>oh joy cant we all just open the front door and be naked together</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862858</id>
	<title>This Will Bite You In The Ass</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264151040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks to this court's ruling, use of a Whois privacy cloak will now be classified as "Material Falsification" when it suits them. So, when they come for you and your conspiracy theorist website that they deem too liberal/conservative they'll now have one more charge to throw onto the litany of drummed up offenses that you have perpetrated.</p><p>Well, he must be guilty, look at all the charges that they brought against him.</p><p>I don't like it at all. According to CAN-SPAM sending spam is illegal, why is this needed? It's just piling on and opening up more opportunities for abuse.</p><p>I've never understood why people think that making something illegal, somehow more illegal will have any effect on the crime. The act is already classified. There is no need for additional classification. Once it has been classified, only enforcement is necessary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks to this court 's ruling , use of a Whois privacy cloak will now be classified as " Material Falsification " when it suits them .
So , when they come for you and your conspiracy theorist website that they deem too liberal/conservative they 'll now have one more charge to throw onto the litany of drummed up offenses that you have perpetrated.Well , he must be guilty , look at all the charges that they brought against him.I do n't like it at all .
According to CAN-SPAM sending spam is illegal , why is this needed ?
It 's just piling on and opening up more opportunities for abuse.I 've never understood why people think that making something illegal , somehow more illegal will have any effect on the crime .
The act is already classified .
There is no need for additional classification .
Once it has been classified , only enforcement is necessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks to this court's ruling, use of a Whois privacy cloak will now be classified as "Material Falsification" when it suits them.
So, when they come for you and your conspiracy theorist website that they deem too liberal/conservative they'll now have one more charge to throw onto the litany of drummed up offenses that you have perpetrated.Well, he must be guilty, look at all the charges that they brought against him.I don't like it at all.
According to CAN-SPAM sending spam is illegal, why is this needed?
It's just piling on and opening up more opportunities for abuse.I've never understood why people think that making something illegal, somehow more illegal will have any effect on the crime.
The act is already classified.
There is no need for additional classification.
Once it has been classified, only enforcement is necessary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862468</id>
	<title>Hold Credit card companies responsible</title>
	<author>IamGarageGuy 2</author>
	<datestamp>1264192020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Take away their ability to use credit cards - problem goes away. Am I the only one who sees this?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Take away their ability to use credit cards - problem goes away .
Am I the only one who sees this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take away their ability to use credit cards - problem goes away.
Am I the only one who sees this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861790</id>
	<title>Need more of a deterrent than this</title>
	<author>gsgriffin</author>
	<datestamp>1264188000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think the 9th circuit will ever take spam back, if the only penalty is loss of money.  Now, add the death penalty to SPAMming and maybe they'll think twice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think the 9th circuit will ever take spam back , if the only penalty is loss of money .
Now , add the death penalty to SPAMming and maybe they 'll think twice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think the 9th circuit will ever take spam back, if the only penalty is loss of money.
Now, add the death penalty to SPAMming and maybe they'll think twice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862644</id>
	<title>Re:Material falsification?</title>
	<author>ae1294</author>
	<datestamp>1264193100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is so true and in fact I'd like to take a moment here to offer you a whooping 50\% discount on your next order of viagra, soma or xannax from our <a href="http://www.drugbuyers.com/freeboard/ubbthreads.php?ubb=compareprices" title="drugbuyers.com">online</a> [drugbuyers.com] pharmacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is so true and in fact I 'd like to take a moment here to offer you a whooping 50 \ % discount on your next order of viagra , soma or xannax from our online [ drugbuyers.com ] pharmacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is so true and in fact I'd like to take a moment here to offer you a whooping 50\% discount on your next order of viagra, soma or xannax from our online [drugbuyers.com] pharmacy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30865310</id>
	<title>Re:The first amendment is dead and buried...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264165320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The right to free speech does not include the right to impose that speech on someone else, its sad that so many people like yourself don't understand it.</p><p>You have the right to free speech, but not everywhere and at any time or using any method you want.</p><p>You do not have a right to impose your free speech on me.</p><p>You do not have the right to stand in the middle of a residential neighborhood at 3 am shouting crap at the top of your lungs, waking everyone up.</p><p>When you enter my home, business, or even public places you have lost your right to free speech.  You have the right to go somewhere private and do whatever you want with authorization, but you aren't allowed to do whatever you want whenever you want wherever you want.</p><p>Freedom of speech has limits, it takes a true idiot to imply that freedom of speech protects kiddy porn or spamming.  You're attempting to twist the intent of the idea into something its not.</p><p>I agree though, I don't want the government to be involved.  I want the right to execute on the spot anyone who imposes their free speech on me in my own domain, such as my home or inbox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The right to free speech does not include the right to impose that speech on someone else , its sad that so many people like yourself do n't understand it.You have the right to free speech , but not everywhere and at any time or using any method you want.You do not have a right to impose your free speech on me.You do not have the right to stand in the middle of a residential neighborhood at 3 am shouting crap at the top of your lungs , waking everyone up.When you enter my home , business , or even public places you have lost your right to free speech .
You have the right to go somewhere private and do whatever you want with authorization , but you are n't allowed to do whatever you want whenever you want wherever you want.Freedom of speech has limits , it takes a true idiot to imply that freedom of speech protects kiddy porn or spamming .
You 're attempting to twist the intent of the idea into something its not.I agree though , I do n't want the government to be involved .
I want the right to execute on the spot anyone who imposes their free speech on me in my own domain , such as my home or inbox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The right to free speech does not include the right to impose that speech on someone else, its sad that so many people like yourself don't understand it.You have the right to free speech, but not everywhere and at any time or using any method you want.You do not have a right to impose your free speech on me.You do not have the right to stand in the middle of a residential neighborhood at 3 am shouting crap at the top of your lungs, waking everyone up.When you enter my home, business, or even public places you have lost your right to free speech.
You have the right to go somewhere private and do whatever you want with authorization, but you aren't allowed to do whatever you want whenever you want wherever you want.Freedom of speech has limits, it takes a true idiot to imply that freedom of speech protects kiddy porn or spamming.
You're attempting to twist the intent of the idea into something its not.I agree though, I don't want the government to be involved.
I want the right to execute on the spot anyone who imposes their free speech on me in my own domain, such as my home or inbox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30864956</id>
	<title>Re:The first amendment is dead and buried...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264162980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the purpose of this freedom, however, is to make sure that no one can be punished for any political advocacy.  to ensure that you cannot be persecuted for speaking out against the people in power, not for advertising dick pills.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the purpose of this freedom , however , is to make sure that no one can be punished for any political advocacy .
to ensure that you can not be persecuted for speaking out against the people in power , not for advertising dick pills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the purpose of this freedom, however, is to make sure that no one can be punished for any political advocacy.
to ensure that you cannot be persecuted for speaking out against the people in power, not for advertising dick pills.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862458</id>
	<title>Old news - this was decided last October</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1264191960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
This is <a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/10/28/07-10528.pdf" title="uscourts.gov">US vs. Kilbride</a> [uscourts.gov], decided last October.  It apparently took Sedo a few months to notice.
</p><p>
It's actually a porno spam case left over from the Bush Administration.  It's not like the Justice Department was doing anything effective about spam in general.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is US vs. Kilbride [ uscourts.gov ] , decided last October .
It apparently took Sedo a few months to notice .
It 's actually a porno spam case left over from the Bush Administration .
It 's not like the Justice Department was doing anything effective about spam in general .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
This is US vs. Kilbride [uscourts.gov], decided last October.
It apparently took Sedo a few months to notice.
It's actually a porno spam case left over from the Bush Administration.
It's not like the Justice Department was doing anything effective about spam in general.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861480</id>
	<title>Indeed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264185960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <tt>"Spammers hiding behind a WHOIS privacy service have been found in violation of CAN-SPAM. It probably won't stop other spammers from hiding (what can?)</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>Who is? What can?</p><p>Indeed. These questions have been around since time immemorial.</p><p>But when will?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Spammers hiding behind a WHOIS privacy service have been found in violation of CAN-SPAM .
It probably wo n't stop other spammers from hiding ( what can ?
) Who is ?
What can ? Indeed .
These questions have been around since time immemorial.But when will ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "Spammers hiding behind a WHOIS privacy service have been found in violation of CAN-SPAM.
It probably won't stop other spammers from hiding (what can?
) Who is?
What can?Indeed.
These questions have been around since time immemorial.But when will?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861534</id>
	<title>Isn't this a wall easily broken?</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1264186200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems to me that whenever anybody contacts the information in the WHOIS database for a "private" domain... the message is forwarded immediately to the actual contact person on file at the privacy service, and if it's a DMCA Takedown or other legal nastygram, the privacy service has the power to change the nameservers and knock the site offline.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me that whenever anybody contacts the information in the WHOIS database for a " private " domain... the message is forwarded immediately to the actual contact person on file at the privacy service , and if it 's a DMCA Takedown or other legal nastygram , the privacy service has the power to change the nameservers and knock the site offline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me that whenever anybody contacts the information in the WHOIS database for a "private" domain... the message is forwarded immediately to the actual contact person on file at the privacy service, and if it's a DMCA Takedown or other legal nastygram, the privacy service has the power to change the nameservers and knock the site offline.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30867684</id>
	<title>Re:SPAM contents still a secret</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1264278000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your freedom of speech does not allow you to harass others. You are perfectly entitled to say what you like on your own website be that does not mean you are allowed to shove it into everyone's mailbox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your freedom of speech does not allow you to harass others .
You are perfectly entitled to say what you like on your own website be that does not mean you are allowed to shove it into everyone 's mailbox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your freedom of speech does not allow you to harass others.
You are perfectly entitled to say what you like on your own website be that does not mean you are allowed to shove it into everyone's mailbox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30867922</id>
	<title>Answer this question then BitZtream</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264238520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How come YOU are so fucking stupid?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How come YOU are so fucking stupid ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How come YOU are so fucking stupid?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30865242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30863314</id>
	<title>Fraud and Harrassment are still valid though</title>
	<author>Crazy Taco</author>
	<datestamp>1264153980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Meh, the whole article is irrelevant. Once it gets to the Supreme Court, they'll just say we're restricting spammers' freedom of speech.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's unlikely. There's no such thing as unlimited free speech. You can't lie in a courtroom and claim free speech. That's perjury. You can't yell fire in a movie theater when there is no fire. That puts people's lives in danger. The speech of spammers is not covered by free speech laws because it is harrassment (constantly bombing someone with unsolicited messages they can't opt out of would be considered harrassment by probably any jury of the spammers peers) and fraud, because spam is almost always for fake viagra or something of the like. Both of those are not protected forms of speech. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Meh , the whole article is irrelevant .
Once it gets to the Supreme Court , they 'll just say we 're restricting spammers ' freedom of speech.That 's unlikely .
There 's no such thing as unlimited free speech .
You ca n't lie in a courtroom and claim free speech .
That 's perjury .
You ca n't yell fire in a movie theater when there is no fire .
That puts people 's lives in danger .
The speech of spammers is not covered by free speech laws because it is harrassment ( constantly bombing someone with unsolicited messages they ca n't opt out of would be considered harrassment by probably any jury of the spammers peers ) and fraud , because spam is almost always for fake viagra or something of the like .
Both of those are not protected forms of speech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meh, the whole article is irrelevant.
Once it gets to the Supreme Court, they'll just say we're restricting spammers' freedom of speech.That's unlikely.
There's no such thing as unlimited free speech.
You can't lie in a courtroom and claim free speech.
That's perjury.
You can't yell fire in a movie theater when there is no fire.
That puts people's lives in danger.
The speech of spammers is not covered by free speech laws because it is harrassment (constantly bombing someone with unsolicited messages they can't opt out of would be considered harrassment by probably any jury of the spammers peers) and fraud, because spam is almost always for fake viagra or something of the like.
Both of those are not protected forms of speech. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30867912</id>
	<title>Ok BitZtream. Answer this question then</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264238400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How come you are SO  fucking stupid?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How come you are SO fucking stupid ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How come you are SO  fucking stupid?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30865310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862246</id>
	<title>No one is worried about this?</title>
	<author>mi</author>
	<datestamp>1264190820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The court's decision:</p><blockquote><div><p>using WHOIS privacy on domains may be considered "material falsification" under federal law.</p></div></blockquote><p>The cited part of the law:</p><blockquote><div><p>registration information is materially falsified if it is altered or concealed in a manner that would impair the ability of a recipient of the message...to identify, locate, or respond to a person who initiated the electronic mail message..."</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm afraid, some day this may be applied to people, who have nothing to do with actual spam...

</p><p>Does not anybody see parallels with terrorism here?</p><ul> <li>We can't afford to give protections of the real trial by a civilian court to terrorists!</li><li>We don't know, whether they are terrorists, until a trial concludes, that they are!</li></ul></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The court 's decision : using WHOIS privacy on domains may be considered " material falsification " under federal law.The cited part of the law : registration information is materially falsified if it is altered or concealed in a manner that would impair the ability of a recipient of the message...to identify , locate , or respond to a person who initiated the electronic mail message... " I 'm afraid , some day this may be applied to people , who have nothing to do with actual spam.. . Does not anybody see parallels with terrorism here ?
We ca n't afford to give protections of the real trial by a civilian court to terrorists ! We do n't know , whether they are terrorists , until a trial concludes , that they are !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The court's decision:using WHOIS privacy on domains may be considered "material falsification" under federal law.The cited part of the law:registration information is materially falsified if it is altered or concealed in a manner that would impair the ability of a recipient of the message...to identify, locate, or respond to a person who initiated the electronic mail message..."I'm afraid, some day this may be applied to people, who have nothing to do with actual spam...

Does not anybody see parallels with terrorism here?
We can't afford to give protections of the real trial by a civilian court to terrorists!We don't know, whether they are terrorists, until a trial concludes, that they are!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862164</id>
	<title>Re:Problem</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1264190280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So along come these anonymization services so we can have an online presence without giving up our privacy -- and now that's been declared illegal?</i></p><p>From the header:</p><p>Although the ruling <b>does not make use of WHOIS privacy illegal</b>, it does serve as a clear message from the court that <b>coupling the use of privacy services with intentional spamming</b> will likely result in a violation of the CAN-SPAM act.</p><p>Cough. You were saying?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So along come these anonymization services so we can have an online presence without giving up our privacy -- and now that 's been declared illegal ? From the header : Although the ruling does not make use of WHOIS privacy illegal , it does serve as a clear message from the court that coupling the use of privacy services with intentional spamming will likely result in a violation of the CAN-SPAM act.Cough .
You were saying ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So along come these anonymization services so we can have an online presence without giving up our privacy -- and now that's been declared illegal?From the header:Although the ruling does not make use of WHOIS privacy illegal, it does serve as a clear message from the court that coupling the use of privacy services with intentional spamming will likely result in a violation of the CAN-SPAM act.Cough.
You were saying?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30863718</id>
	<title>I almost agree with you...</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1264156080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Spam is ultimately an economic problem</p></div><p>
Have you been reading my journal articles?  Not to mock you for being late to the party, but <a href="http://slashdot.org/~damn\_registrars/journal/215137" title="slashdot.org">I've been discussing that for a while</a> [slashdot.org]; I <a href="http://slashdot.org/~damn\_registrars/journal/239777" title="slashdot.org">brought it up a few months ago as well</a> [slashdot.org].<br> <br>
Unfortunately I think you miss the boat:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Stricter punishments for spamming, punishment for ISPs that are particularly bad, better education of people who answer spam, better use of whitelists, blacklists and greylists are all techniques that can help. Every technique has problems. Hence the standard Slashdot response with the checkboxes. However, although each has flaws, together they can be very effective</p></div><p>
Because ultimately none of those approaches actually address the economic issue that you and I both acknowledge.  Simply inconveniencing the spammer won't accomplish much of anything; they will just send more spam.  You'd be just as well off to advocate for their execution.<br> <br>
As I've said before, if you want to stop spam you need to stop the money from flowing.  <i>Cut off the spammers from the companies that <b>they</b> pay money to</i>.  Crack down on the registrars with some meaningful ICANN policies and watch the spam whither.  If they can't do business, they won't make money and they'll find something else to do.  Spammers are reliant on networks of DNS servers, registrars, ISPs, etc...  Throw a wrench into that machinery and you could accomplish something towards brining it down.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Spam is ultimately an economic problem Have you been reading my journal articles ?
Not to mock you for being late to the party , but I 've been discussing that for a while [ slashdot.org ] ; I brought it up a few months ago as well [ slashdot.org ] .
Unfortunately I think you miss the boat : Stricter punishments for spamming , punishment for ISPs that are particularly bad , better education of people who answer spam , better use of whitelists , blacklists and greylists are all techniques that can help .
Every technique has problems .
Hence the standard Slashdot response with the checkboxes .
However , although each has flaws , together they can be very effective Because ultimately none of those approaches actually address the economic issue that you and I both acknowledge .
Simply inconveniencing the spammer wo n't accomplish much of anything ; they will just send more spam .
You 'd be just as well off to advocate for their execution .
As I 've said before , if you want to stop spam you need to stop the money from flowing .
Cut off the spammers from the companies that they pay money to .
Crack down on the registrars with some meaningful ICANN policies and watch the spam whither .
If they ca n't do business , they wo n't make money and they 'll find something else to do .
Spammers are reliant on networks of DNS servers , registrars , ISPs , etc... Throw a wrench into that machinery and you could accomplish something towards brining it down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spam is ultimately an economic problem
Have you been reading my journal articles?
Not to mock you for being late to the party, but I've been discussing that for a while [slashdot.org]; I brought it up a few months ago as well [slashdot.org].
Unfortunately I think you miss the boat:Stricter punishments for spamming, punishment for ISPs that are particularly bad, better education of people who answer spam, better use of whitelists, blacklists and greylists are all techniques that can help.
Every technique has problems.
Hence the standard Slashdot response with the checkboxes.
However, although each has flaws, together they can be very effective
Because ultimately none of those approaches actually address the economic issue that you and I both acknowledge.
Simply inconveniencing the spammer won't accomplish much of anything; they will just send more spam.
You'd be just as well off to advocate for their execution.
As I've said before, if you want to stop spam you need to stop the money from flowing.
Cut off the spammers from the companies that they pay money to.
Crack down on the registrars with some meaningful ICANN policies and watch the spam whither.
If they can't do business, they won't make money and they'll find something else to do.
Spammers are reliant on networks of DNS servers, registrars, ISPs, etc...  Throw a wrench into that machinery and you could accomplish something towards brining it down.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861838</id>
	<title>Problem</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1264188420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what we're doing is eschewing personal privacy in exchange for... corporate privacy? It used to be years ago, I could setup a web server on a xDSL line from home and run a small business off of that. Of course, few people want to post their cell phone number (often their only number) online, or any other method of direct contact. Amongst other things, that would invite spam. So along come these anonymization services so we can have an online presence without giving up our privacy -- and now that's been declared illegal? So domains owned by individuals or sole-proprietorships are screwed, but corporations have little to worry about: They can just assign some random techie to be the contact for their domain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what we 're doing is eschewing personal privacy in exchange for... corporate privacy ?
It used to be years ago , I could setup a web server on a xDSL line from home and run a small business off of that .
Of course , few people want to post their cell phone number ( often their only number ) online , or any other method of direct contact .
Amongst other things , that would invite spam .
So along come these anonymization services so we can have an online presence without giving up our privacy -- and now that 's been declared illegal ?
So domains owned by individuals or sole-proprietorships are screwed , but corporations have little to worry about : They can just assign some random techie to be the contact for their domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what we're doing is eschewing personal privacy in exchange for... corporate privacy?
It used to be years ago, I could setup a web server on a xDSL line from home and run a small business off of that.
Of course, few people want to post their cell phone number (often their only number) online, or any other method of direct contact.
Amongst other things, that would invite spam.
So along come these anonymization services so we can have an online presence without giving up our privacy -- and now that's been declared illegal?
So domains owned by individuals or sole-proprietorships are screwed, but corporations have little to worry about: They can just assign some random techie to be the contact for their domain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30867906</id>
	<title>I would like to ask you a question please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264238280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How come you are so fucking stupid?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How come you are so fucking stupid ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How come you are so fucking stupid?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30865358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862290</id>
	<title>NOT just an economic problem</title>
	<author>Alwin Henseler</author>
	<datestamp>1264191060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Spam is ultimately an economic problem. As long as spam remains highly profitiable spamming will continue.</p></div><p>I won't assume this to mean a 'silent approval' for spamming, but it does sound you take this as a given. IMHO that is not true. There are other reasons why spam remains a problem:</p><ul>
<li>Because e-mail (and "from:" field in particular) is easily faked. If public key authentication and strong encryption were the norm, it would be impossible to spam on the current scale with fake "from:" info and bullshit messages. Spam with valid security envelope would directly point back to the responsible perps, or a <em>very recently</em> compromised machine/account. Upon compromise, most owners would publish a new public key. It would be easy to ignore/blacklist users that don't do so. Messages encoded with a compromised key would have an invalid security envelope.</li><li>Often it is difficult to connect an e-mail address to an actual person or organization. When compromised, e-mail addresses are easily discarded, and new ones created. This is very related to the 1st point. If untrue, past actions would stick to a person or organization much longer, and be much more damaging when abused (read: promoting careful use over abuse).</li><li>It's so easy to compromise an average computer. Basically: use any system that isn't updated to the latest &amp; greatest (for whatever reason), browse the wrong website, open the wrong document, or download &amp; run an executable from the wrong place (any of these actions will do), and you're hosed. And a market dominated by the least secure option doesn't help. </li><li>Once the spammer is known, it's often difficult to get the person convicted because he/she is abroad, and the governments involved aren't co-operating well. The lack of strong authentication makes it harder to <em>prove</em> things. When a conviction happens, it's the spammer not the company pushing pills that pays.</li><li>Costs for sending, receiving &amp; filtering spam are paid by parties <em>other</em> than the ones spamming.</li></ul><p>Basically, a combination of  technical, political and legal reasons, beside the economic ones. Spam continues because the parties profiting from it aren't held accountable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Spam is ultimately an economic problem .
As long as spam remains highly profitiable spamming will continue.I wo n't assume this to mean a 'silent approval ' for spamming , but it does sound you take this as a given .
IMHO that is not true .
There are other reasons why spam remains a problem : Because e-mail ( and " from : " field in particular ) is easily faked .
If public key authentication and strong encryption were the norm , it would be impossible to spam on the current scale with fake " from : " info and bullshit messages .
Spam with valid security envelope would directly point back to the responsible perps , or a very recently compromised machine/account .
Upon compromise , most owners would publish a new public key .
It would be easy to ignore/blacklist users that do n't do so .
Messages encoded with a compromised key would have an invalid security envelope.Often it is difficult to connect an e-mail address to an actual person or organization .
When compromised , e-mail addresses are easily discarded , and new ones created .
This is very related to the 1st point .
If untrue , past actions would stick to a person or organization much longer , and be much more damaging when abused ( read : promoting careful use over abuse ) .It 's so easy to compromise an average computer .
Basically : use any system that is n't updated to the latest &amp; greatest ( for whatever reason ) , browse the wrong website , open the wrong document , or download &amp; run an executable from the wrong place ( any of these actions will do ) , and you 're hosed .
And a market dominated by the least secure option does n't help .
Once the spammer is known , it 's often difficult to get the person convicted because he/she is abroad , and the governments involved are n't co-operating well .
The lack of strong authentication makes it harder to prove things .
When a conviction happens , it 's the spammer not the company pushing pills that pays.Costs for sending , receiving &amp; filtering spam are paid by parties other than the ones spamming.Basically , a combination of technical , political and legal reasons , beside the economic ones .
Spam continues because the parties profiting from it are n't held accountable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spam is ultimately an economic problem.
As long as spam remains highly profitiable spamming will continue.I won't assume this to mean a 'silent approval' for spamming, but it does sound you take this as a given.
IMHO that is not true.
There are other reasons why spam remains a problem:
Because e-mail (and "from:" field in particular) is easily faked.
If public key authentication and strong encryption were the norm, it would be impossible to spam on the current scale with fake "from:" info and bullshit messages.
Spam with valid security envelope would directly point back to the responsible perps, or a very recently compromised machine/account.
Upon compromise, most owners would publish a new public key.
It would be easy to ignore/blacklist users that don't do so.
Messages encoded with a compromised key would have an invalid security envelope.Often it is difficult to connect an e-mail address to an actual person or organization.
When compromised, e-mail addresses are easily discarded, and new ones created.
This is very related to the 1st point.
If untrue, past actions would stick to a person or organization much longer, and be much more damaging when abused (read: promoting careful use over abuse).It's so easy to compromise an average computer.
Basically: use any system that isn't updated to the latest &amp; greatest (for whatever reason), browse the wrong website, open the wrong document, or download &amp; run an executable from the wrong place (any of these actions will do), and you're hosed.
And a market dominated by the least secure option doesn't help.
Once the spammer is known, it's often difficult to get the person convicted because he/she is abroad, and the governments involved aren't co-operating well.
The lack of strong authentication makes it harder to prove things.
When a conviction happens, it's the spammer not the company pushing pills that pays.Costs for sending, receiving &amp; filtering spam are paid by parties other than the ones spamming.Basically, a combination of  technical, political and legal reasons, beside the economic ones.
Spam continues because the parties profiting from it aren't held accountable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861978</id>
	<title>I am not a lawyer</title>
	<author>RingDev</author>
	<datestamp>1264189260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But my understanding is that this is being set up as a violation of the CANSPAM act, not as a new law.</p><p>So privatized whois is still perfectly legal, unless you are using it to hide the owner of a spamming operation.</p><p>-Rick</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But my understanding is that this is being set up as a violation of the CANSPAM act , not as a new law.So privatized whois is still perfectly legal , unless you are using it to hide the owner of a spamming operation.-Rick</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But my understanding is that this is being set up as a violation of the CANSPAM act, not as a new law.So privatized whois is still perfectly legal, unless you are using it to hide the owner of a spamming operation.-Rick</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861804</id>
	<title>Re:The first amendment is dead and buried...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264188120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Censorship is a red herring here.<br>Spam isn't "unpopular speech" merely because of what it <i>says</i>.<br>Spam is an abuse of a communication channel.<br>One more time: It's about <i>consent</i>, not <i>content</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Censorship is a red herring here.Spam is n't " unpopular speech " merely because of what it says.Spam is an abuse of a communication channel.One more time : It 's about consent , not content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Censorship is a red herring here.Spam isn't "unpopular speech" merely because of what it says.Spam is an abuse of a communication channel.One more time: It's about consent, not content.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861516</id>
	<title>This is a good step but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264186140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Spam is ultimately an economic problem. As long as spam remains highly profitiable spamming will continue. To deal with the spam problem we need to take a multi-faceted approach that includes a variety of both economic and other attacks. Stricter punishments for spamming, punishment for ISPs that are particularly bad, better education of people who answer spam, better use of whitelists, blacklists and greylists are all techniques that can help. Every technique has problems. Hence the standard Slashdot response with the checkboxes. However, although each has flaws, together they can  be very effective. In that regard, this is sort of like cancer. Cancer is a very complicated diseases. However, by careful application of multiple medical techniques (radiation, surgery and chemotherapy being big ones) we've substantially cut down on cancer deaths. Sure, cancer still kills. But many forms are far less deadly. Childhood leukemia was a death sentence 40 years ago and now has a high survival rate. We need the same sort of combined approach to spam. This won't eradicate spam. But it will reduce it to more  manageable levels.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Spam is ultimately an economic problem .
As long as spam remains highly profitiable spamming will continue .
To deal with the spam problem we need to take a multi-faceted approach that includes a variety of both economic and other attacks .
Stricter punishments for spamming , punishment for ISPs that are particularly bad , better education of people who answer spam , better use of whitelists , blacklists and greylists are all techniques that can help .
Every technique has problems .
Hence the standard Slashdot response with the checkboxes .
However , although each has flaws , together they can be very effective .
In that regard , this is sort of like cancer .
Cancer is a very complicated diseases .
However , by careful application of multiple medical techniques ( radiation , surgery and chemotherapy being big ones ) we 've substantially cut down on cancer deaths .
Sure , cancer still kills .
But many forms are far less deadly .
Childhood leukemia was a death sentence 40 years ago and now has a high survival rate .
We need the same sort of combined approach to spam .
This wo n't eradicate spam .
But it will reduce it to more manageable levels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spam is ultimately an economic problem.
As long as spam remains highly profitiable spamming will continue.
To deal with the spam problem we need to take a multi-faceted approach that includes a variety of both economic and other attacks.
Stricter punishments for spamming, punishment for ISPs that are particularly bad, better education of people who answer spam, better use of whitelists, blacklists and greylists are all techniques that can help.
Every technique has problems.
Hence the standard Slashdot response with the checkboxes.
However, although each has flaws, together they can  be very effective.
In that regard, this is sort of like cancer.
Cancer is a very complicated diseases.
However, by careful application of multiple medical techniques (radiation, surgery and chemotherapy being big ones) we've substantially cut down on cancer deaths.
Sure, cancer still kills.
But many forms are far less deadly.
Childhood leukemia was a death sentence 40 years ago and now has a high survival rate.
We need the same sort of combined approach to spam.
This won't eradicate spam.
But it will reduce it to more  manageable levels.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861798</id>
	<title>Re:This is a good step but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264188060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ONLY Thing that will ever get rid of spam is for people to stop clicking on links contained in spam, buying stuff from spam or falling for phishing attempts through spam.  What we need aren't better spam filters, it's people being better educated.  Blocking more and more spam is just going to make the spammers more innovative - as long as they make money.  If people are educated and spam isn't profitable anymore, it will slowly start to subside.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ONLY Thing that will ever get rid of spam is for people to stop clicking on links contained in spam , buying stuff from spam or falling for phishing attempts through spam .
What we need are n't better spam filters , it 's people being better educated .
Blocking more and more spam is just going to make the spammers more innovative - as long as they make money .
If people are educated and spam is n't profitable anymore , it will slowly start to subside .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ONLY Thing that will ever get rid of spam is for people to stop clicking on links contained in spam, buying stuff from spam or falling for phishing attempts through spam.
What we need aren't better spam filters, it's people being better educated.
Blocking more and more spam is just going to make the spammers more innovative - as long as they make money.
If people are educated and spam isn't profitable anymore, it will slowly start to subside.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862038</id>
	<title>Re:The first amendment is dead and buried...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264189560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any good residential neighborhood should have contractual obligations placed on its residents as a prerequisite to moving in.  Don't like the rules, live somewhere else.  This is an issue of contract law, very different from this travesty of government interventionism that neither I nor the people sending me spam have ever signed.  It would become a criminal matter only if I can prove actual damage was done to my property by an outside source, but that just isn't feasible for matters like spam e-mail.</p><p>You do not have a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative\_and\_positive\_rights" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">positive "right"</a> [wikipedia.org] to peace and quiet, that is a right to force other people to shut the hell up on their own property.  Peace and quiet, as well as privacy, are a luxury that you have to pay for - good soundproof windows with blinds that close when you want privacy, a home in a less densely populated place or a neighborhood with explicit noise rules, spam filters, and so forth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any good residential neighborhood should have contractual obligations placed on its residents as a prerequisite to moving in .
Do n't like the rules , live somewhere else .
This is an issue of contract law , very different from this travesty of government interventionism that neither I nor the people sending me spam have ever signed .
It would become a criminal matter only if I can prove actual damage was done to my property by an outside source , but that just is n't feasible for matters like spam e-mail.You do not have a positive " right " [ wikipedia.org ] to peace and quiet , that is a right to force other people to shut the hell up on their own property .
Peace and quiet , as well as privacy , are a luxury that you have to pay for - good soundproof windows with blinds that close when you want privacy , a home in a less densely populated place or a neighborhood with explicit noise rules , spam filters , and so forth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any good residential neighborhood should have contractual obligations placed on its residents as a prerequisite to moving in.
Don't like the rules, live somewhere else.
This is an issue of contract law, very different from this travesty of government interventionism that neither I nor the people sending me spam have ever signed.
It would become a criminal matter only if I can prove actual damage was done to my property by an outside source, but that just isn't feasible for matters like spam e-mail.You do not have a positive "right" [wikipedia.org] to peace and quiet, that is a right to force other people to shut the hell up on their own property.
Peace and quiet, as well as privacy, are a luxury that you have to pay for - good soundproof windows with blinds that close when you want privacy, a home in a less densely populated place or a neighborhood with explicit noise rules, spam filters, and so forth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862438</id>
	<title>Clean GoDaddy - Clean 80\% SPAM scum</title>
	<author>weaponx71</author>
	<datestamp>1264191900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I swear that whenever I take the time to back track any SPAM messages I get, and I don't mean all the Viagra ads, but the ones that I get from a subject that I might have interest in but I know I never did business with them or requested anything from them. They are hiding out at GoDaddy.

Most don't have the unsubcribe link, most just don't work. I have only come across ONE company that did anything about an emailing I got and that was Google.
Typical online marketing email saying you can make tens of thousands of dollars doing nothing per month. Just buy their $97 advertising "secrets" and you will have a mansion and a Ferrari in months. I complained to Google since the email didn't have an unsubsribe link or removal link.
They must have done something or sent them something because I got another email asking me why I turned them in and that they weren't SPAM.
I politely told them they were whack and have since blocked their domains and emails at my web hosting level.

When I try this with GoDaddy. I either get nothing in reply or a canned email from GoDaddy stating they don't get inbetween a business and it's customers about money owed or services not renedered. WHAT? I tell them they have a violation of their own User Agreement and they spew back nonsense.
Why would they want to do anything or cut off anything that is making them money?

We need to have more control given back to the normal person, and heck I have a small company and even going through that I can't get ISP or Registrars to do anything worth while. If you aren't making THEM a lot of money, you just simply don't matter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I swear that whenever I take the time to back track any SPAM messages I get , and I do n't mean all the Viagra ads , but the ones that I get from a subject that I might have interest in but I know I never did business with them or requested anything from them .
They are hiding out at GoDaddy .
Most do n't have the unsubcribe link , most just do n't work .
I have only come across ONE company that did anything about an emailing I got and that was Google .
Typical online marketing email saying you can make tens of thousands of dollars doing nothing per month .
Just buy their $ 97 advertising " secrets " and you will have a mansion and a Ferrari in months .
I complained to Google since the email did n't have an unsubsribe link or removal link .
They must have done something or sent them something because I got another email asking me why I turned them in and that they were n't SPAM .
I politely told them they were whack and have since blocked their domains and emails at my web hosting level .
When I try this with GoDaddy .
I either get nothing in reply or a canned email from GoDaddy stating they do n't get inbetween a business and it 's customers about money owed or services not renedered .
WHAT ? I tell them they have a violation of their own User Agreement and they spew back nonsense .
Why would they want to do anything or cut off anything that is making them money ?
We need to have more control given back to the normal person , and heck I have a small company and even going through that I ca n't get ISP or Registrars to do anything worth while .
If you are n't making THEM a lot of money , you just simply do n't matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I swear that whenever I take the time to back track any SPAM messages I get, and I don't mean all the Viagra ads, but the ones that I get from a subject that I might have interest in but I know I never did business with them or requested anything from them.
They are hiding out at GoDaddy.
Most don't have the unsubcribe link, most just don't work.
I have only come across ONE company that did anything about an emailing I got and that was Google.
Typical online marketing email saying you can make tens of thousands of dollars doing nothing per month.
Just buy their $97 advertising "secrets" and you will have a mansion and a Ferrari in months.
I complained to Google since the email didn't have an unsubsribe link or removal link.
They must have done something or sent them something because I got another email asking me why I turned them in and that they weren't SPAM.
I politely told them they were whack and have since blocked their domains and emails at my web hosting level.
When I try this with GoDaddy.
I either get nothing in reply or a canned email from GoDaddy stating they don't get inbetween a business and it's customers about money owed or services not renedered.
WHAT? I tell them they have a violation of their own User Agreement and they spew back nonsense.
Why would they want to do anything or cut off anything that is making them money?
We need to have more control given back to the normal person, and heck I have a small company and even going through that I can't get ISP or Registrars to do anything worth while.
If you aren't making THEM a lot of money, you just simply don't matter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861774</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm...</title>
	<author>Drethon</author>
	<datestamp>1264187880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems kind of like DRM (in an indirect way).  Anything created to stop illegal activities will not slow down the crooks and instead end up making legitimate users pay more...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems kind of like DRM ( in an indirect way ) .
Anything created to stop illegal activities will not slow down the crooks and instead end up making legitimate users pay more.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems kind of like DRM (in an indirect way).
Anything created to stop illegal activities will not slow down the crooks and instead end up making legitimate users pay more...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862464</id>
	<title>the insightful point here</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1264192020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>from the evolution of animals and plants to the evolution of laws and ideologies and technologies governing modern societies, is:</p><p>life is an arms race</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>from the evolution of animals and plants to the evolution of laws and ideologies and technologies governing modern societies , is : life is an arms race</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from the evolution of animals and plants to the evolution of laws and ideologies and technologies governing modern societies, is:life is an arms race</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861554</id>
	<title>Hmmm...</title>
	<author>McGregorMortis</author>
	<datestamp>1264186320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WHOIS privacy was created in the first place to protect us from spammers (the WHOIS database being ripe for email address scraping).  Then the spammers took advantage of it to protect themselves from justice.</p><p>It seems like there's some kind of insightful point to be made here, but I'm not sure what it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WHOIS privacy was created in the first place to protect us from spammers ( the WHOIS database being ripe for email address scraping ) .
Then the spammers took advantage of it to protect themselves from justice.It seems like there 's some kind of insightful point to be made here , but I 'm not sure what it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WHOIS privacy was created in the first place to protect us from spammers (the WHOIS database being ripe for email address scraping).
Then the spammers took advantage of it to protect themselves from justice.It seems like there's some kind of insightful point to be made here, but I'm not sure what it is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1555257_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1555257_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1555257_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30868526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1555257_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30867906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30865358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1555257_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30867912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30865310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1555257_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1555257_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30863320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1555257_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30864956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1555257_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1555257_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1555257_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30863718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1555257_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30867922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30865242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1555257_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1555257_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1555257_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1555257_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1555257_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1555257_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1555257_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30863314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1555257_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1555257_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1555257_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1555257_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1555257_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1555257_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30866876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1555257_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30863064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1555257_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1555257_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1555257_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30865890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1555257_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1555257_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1555257_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1555257_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30867684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1555257.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861480
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1555257.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862154
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1555257.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30863718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30863320
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1555257.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861478
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30867684
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862482
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30863314
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862824
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1555257.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861774
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30865242
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30867922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862380
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30865890
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1555257.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862882
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1555257.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30865310
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30867912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862750
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30868526
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30866876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861710
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862302
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862038
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30864956
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1555257.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862458
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1555257.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30865358
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30867906
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1555257.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30863064
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1555257.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862246
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1555257.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1555257.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30861634
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1555257.30862644
</commentlist>
</conversation>
