<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_27_163206</id>
	<title>Unpacking the Secrets of ACTA</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1264610520000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"As negotiations in the 7th round of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade
Agreement talks continue this week in Mexico, Michael Geist has been
posting a comprehensive guide to the secret copyright treaty. He
started with a review of the <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4725/125/">substance of
the treaty</a>, then posted links to all the <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4730/125/">leaked
documentation</a>, and has now <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4737/125/">unpacked the
secrecy</a> associated with the talks, including why governments have
made it secret, the public concern, and why this isn't business as
usual."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " As negotiations in the 7th round of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement talks continue this week in Mexico , Michael Geist has been posting a comprehensive guide to the secret copyright treaty .
He started with a review of the substance of the treaty , then posted links to all the leaked documentation , and has now unpacked the secrecy associated with the talks , including why governments have made it secret , the public concern , and why this is n't business as usual .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "As negotiations in the 7th round of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade
Agreement talks continue this week in Mexico, Michael Geist has been
posting a comprehensive guide to the secret copyright treaty.
He
started with a review of the substance of
the treaty, then posted links to all the leaked
documentation, and has now unpacked the
secrecy associated with the talks, including why governments have
made it secret, the public concern, and why this isn't business as
usual.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920718</id>
	<title>Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?</title>
	<author>Jawn98685</author>
	<datestamp>1264620480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's a difference between a government <i>running</i> corporations and a government <i>regulating</i> corporations. </p></div><p>[citation needed] <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and no. Fox News and the usual assortment of "reliable tea-bagger sources" doesn't count. <br>
Ahem...
<br>
[crickets...]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a difference between a government running corporations and a government regulating corporations .
[ citation needed ] ...and no .
Fox News and the usual assortment of " reliable tea-bagger sources " does n't count .
Ahem.. . [ crickets... ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a difference between a government running corporations and a government regulating corporations.
[citation needed]  ...and no.
Fox News and the usual assortment of "reliable tea-bagger sources" doesn't count.
Ahem...

[crickets...]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30927972</id>
	<title>Re:ACTA will kill people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264599480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must live in the US.  Other countries DO contribute to phase III clinicial trials and have disease research funding that is guided by a WHO-backed watchdog.</p><p>The drug system is very similar to the audo/video system -- limited "content providers" but many many researchers, who usually have to go through Big Pharm to get their research funded and international stardom for the resulting products.</p><p>These researchers aren't going to vanish if Big Pharm implodes; what WILL vanish is the large amount of speculative research that currently goes on -- which could either be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your point of view.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must live in the US .
Other countries DO contribute to phase III clinicial trials and have disease research funding that is guided by a WHO-backed watchdog.The drug system is very similar to the audo/video system -- limited " content providers " but many many researchers , who usually have to go through Big Pharm to get their research funded and international stardom for the resulting products.These researchers are n't going to vanish if Big Pharm implodes ; what WILL vanish is the large amount of speculative research that currently goes on -- which could either be a good thing or a bad thing , depending on your point of view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must live in the US.
Other countries DO contribute to phase III clinicial trials and have disease research funding that is guided by a WHO-backed watchdog.The drug system is very similar to the audo/video system -- limited "content providers" but many many researchers, who usually have to go through Big Pharm to get their research funded and international stardom for the resulting products.These researchers aren't going to vanish if Big Pharm implodes; what WILL vanish is the large amount of speculative research that currently goes on -- which could either be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your point of view.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30921784</id>
	<title>Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1264623060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And now thanks to the US Supreme Court, you can now have "this candidacy brought to you by Initech". The dissent by John Paul Stevens is something to behold. Although I'm in agreement with those who think Congresscritters should wear Nascar-style outfits, so everyone knows exactly who their corporate sponsors are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And now thanks to the US Supreme Court , you can now have " this candidacy brought to you by Initech " .
The dissent by John Paul Stevens is something to behold .
Although I 'm in agreement with those who think Congresscritters should wear Nascar-style outfits , so everyone knows exactly who their corporate sponsors are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And now thanks to the US Supreme Court, you can now have "this candidacy brought to you by Initech".
The dissent by John Paul Stevens is something to behold.
Although I'm in agreement with those who think Congresscritters should wear Nascar-style outfits, so everyone knows exactly who their corporate sponsors are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30931236</id>
	<title>Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264676580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obama is a puppet in the hands of the Congress-&gt;corporations. He'll surely be much better than GWB, but he still jumps when the Congress or some big corporation say so. You wanted capitalism, here's capitalism, but completely out of hands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama is a puppet in the hands of the Congress- &gt; corporations .
He 'll surely be much better than GWB , but he still jumps when the Congress or some big corporation say so .
You wanted capitalism , here 's capitalism , but completely out of hands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama is a puppet in the hands of the Congress-&gt;corporations.
He'll surely be much better than GWB, but he still jumps when the Congress or some big corporation say so.
You wanted capitalism, here's capitalism, but completely out of hands.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30921192</id>
	<title>Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?</title>
	<author>dpilot</author>
	<datestamp>1264621800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; And what is social security? A mild form of socialism.</p><p>The last administration tried to do away with (privatize) social security.  One of my pet fears is that the new 2012 administration with same-party Executive and Legislative branches will enact the "Fiscal Responsibility and Recovery Act" that will sunset social security, medicare, medicaid, and who knows, maybe even the FDIC/FSLIC in order to undo the last traces of "Socialist FDR".  Of course that *might* correct the deficit problem, if it weren't followed almost immediately by the "Economic Stimulus and Recovery Act" that removed the top tax bracket and sunset capital gains and inheritance taxes - pushing the deficits back up to where they were prior to the two "recovery acts".  Except by this time, the federal government would be so small that you could snuff it out with a blanket, or whatever the phrase was.</p><p>&gt; I believe that we've slowly warmed up to the idea that the best economic<br>&gt; system lies somewhere between pure capitalism and pure socialism.</p><p>I'm there, and I'll agree that states are moving along the spectrum.  But there are strong forces pushing the nation toward pure capitalism - savage, green in tooth and claw.  Personally I think/fear it's really heading toward feudalism, not capitalism or socialism.</p><p>&gt; Decentralization of power back to the states is good.</p><p>In theory I can agree with that.  The problem in practice is that corporations wield much more economic power relative to the states.  Ever watch the states start lifting their skirts whenever a corporation says, "We want to build a new plant."  The real problem is the concessions the states make, and there's no guarantee that all of those new jobs won't get outsourced and the plant shut down a few years later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; And what is social security ?
A mild form of socialism.The last administration tried to do away with ( privatize ) social security .
One of my pet fears is that the new 2012 administration with same-party Executive and Legislative branches will enact the " Fiscal Responsibility and Recovery Act " that will sunset social security , medicare , medicaid , and who knows , maybe even the FDIC/FSLIC in order to undo the last traces of " Socialist FDR " .
Of course that * might * correct the deficit problem , if it were n't followed almost immediately by the " Economic Stimulus and Recovery Act " that removed the top tax bracket and sunset capital gains and inheritance taxes - pushing the deficits back up to where they were prior to the two " recovery acts " .
Except by this time , the federal government would be so small that you could snuff it out with a blanket , or whatever the phrase was. &gt; I believe that we 've slowly warmed up to the idea that the best economic &gt; system lies somewhere between pure capitalism and pure socialism.I 'm there , and I 'll agree that states are moving along the spectrum .
But there are strong forces pushing the nation toward pure capitalism - savage , green in tooth and claw .
Personally I think/fear it 's really heading toward feudalism , not capitalism or socialism. &gt; Decentralization of power back to the states is good.In theory I can agree with that .
The problem in practice is that corporations wield much more economic power relative to the states .
Ever watch the states start lifting their skirts whenever a corporation says , " We want to build a new plant .
" The real problem is the concessions the states make , and there 's no guarantee that all of those new jobs wo n't get outsourced and the plant shut down a few years later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; And what is social security?
A mild form of socialism.The last administration tried to do away with (privatize) social security.
One of my pet fears is that the new 2012 administration with same-party Executive and Legislative branches will enact the "Fiscal Responsibility and Recovery Act" that will sunset social security, medicare, medicaid, and who knows, maybe even the FDIC/FSLIC in order to undo the last traces of "Socialist FDR".
Of course that *might* correct the deficit problem, if it weren't followed almost immediately by the "Economic Stimulus and Recovery Act" that removed the top tax bracket and sunset capital gains and inheritance taxes - pushing the deficits back up to where they were prior to the two "recovery acts".
Except by this time, the federal government would be so small that you could snuff it out with a blanket, or whatever the phrase was.&gt; I believe that we've slowly warmed up to the idea that the best economic&gt; system lies somewhere between pure capitalism and pure socialism.I'm there, and I'll agree that states are moving along the spectrum.
But there are strong forces pushing the nation toward pure capitalism - savage, green in tooth and claw.
Personally I think/fear it's really heading toward feudalism, not capitalism or socialism.&gt; Decentralization of power back to the states is good.In theory I can agree with that.
The problem in practice is that corporations wield much more economic power relative to the states.
Ever watch the states start lifting their skirts whenever a corporation says, "We want to build a new plant.
"  The real problem is the concessions the states make, and there's no guarantee that all of those new jobs won't get outsourced and the plant shut down a few years later.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919286</id>
	<title>Re:Hello?</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1264615200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anything? Anything at all?</p><p>Michael Geist is like the skinny short Brunette in all the Slasher flicks from the 90's. He's always shouting "YOU NEED TO WATCH OUT FOR THIS" but everyone else is like the dumb Jock who isn't afraid of a guy with a knife and ends up getting diced into french fries.</p><p>So - the only opinion you really need to form is whether ACTA is metaphorically a serial killer. It hides under the same deceptive mask of Anonymity, so we don't actually know very much about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anything ?
Anything at all ? Michael Geist is like the skinny short Brunette in all the Slasher flicks from the 90 's .
He 's always shouting " YOU NEED TO WATCH OUT FOR THIS " but everyone else is like the dumb Jock who is n't afraid of a guy with a knife and ends up getting diced into french fries.So - the only opinion you really need to form is whether ACTA is metaphorically a serial killer .
It hides under the same deceptive mask of Anonymity , so we do n't actually know very much about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anything?
Anything at all?Michael Geist is like the skinny short Brunette in all the Slasher flicks from the 90's.
He's always shouting "YOU NEED TO WATCH OUT FOR THIS" but everyone else is like the dumb Jock who isn't afraid of a guy with a knife and ends up getting diced into french fries.So - the only opinion you really need to form is whether ACTA is metaphorically a serial killer.
It hides under the same deceptive mask of Anonymity, so we don't actually know very much about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30924784</id>
	<title>Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264587300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Normally that kind of cynical, trite, anti-republic smugness is enraging, then I recalled it was Clinton who first sold the nation's soul to Disney. Got some kewl-time playing sax on late night TV though. Like the Patriot Act was the Right just expanded on the tools the Left created for the War on Drugs. Hoist meets petard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Normally that kind of cynical , trite , anti-republic smugness is enraging , then I recalled it was Clinton who first sold the nation 's soul to Disney .
Got some kewl-time playing sax on late night TV though .
Like the Patriot Act was the Right just expanded on the tools the Left created for the War on Drugs .
Hoist meets petard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Normally that kind of cynical, trite, anti-republic smugness is enraging, then I recalled it was Clinton who first sold the nation's soul to Disney.
Got some kewl-time playing sax on late night TV though.
Like the Patriot Act was the Right just expanded on the tools the Left created for the War on Drugs.
Hoist meets petard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919586</id>
	<title>Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264616280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and God forbid you should suggest some kind of government regulation because that is "socialism" and as every patriotic American knows Socialism = Evil.</p></div><p>There's a difference between a government <i>running</i> corporations and a government <i>regulating</i> corporations.  The current Congress and Administration prefer the former.  I call that socialism and I don't care if that offends you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and God forbid you should suggest some kind of government regulation because that is " socialism " and as every patriotic American knows Socialism = Evil.There 's a difference between a government running corporations and a government regulating corporations .
The current Congress and Administration prefer the former .
I call that socialism and I do n't care if that offends you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and God forbid you should suggest some kind of government regulation because that is "socialism" and as every patriotic American knows Socialism = Evil.There's a difference between a government running corporations and a government regulating corporations.
The current Congress and Administration prefer the former.
I call that socialism and I don't care if that offends you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920322</id>
	<title>Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264619280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah right. Because a global treaty clearly is a America-only thing, and even more it is clearly the work of one single person with all-encompassing control over everything.</p><p>I&rsquo;d call you a retard to your face. But I won&rsquo;t insult the retards of this planet. That just crosses the line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah right .
Because a global treaty clearly is a America-only thing , and even more it is clearly the work of one single person with all-encompassing control over everything.I    d call you a retard to your face .
But I won    t insult the retards of this planet .
That just crosses the line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah right.
Because a global treaty clearly is a America-only thing, and even more it is clearly the work of one single person with all-encompassing control over everything.I’d call you a retard to your face.
But I won’t insult the retards of this planet.
That just crosses the line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30922152</id>
	<title>Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1264623720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly. I'm tired of these idiots (and generally they're old too) crying about socialism when we're paying into social security, medicare and medicaid.
<br> <br>
If socialism is such a bad thing then don't be shelfish and just try to stop younger people from getting healthcare, take it away from the old people and stamp it out for good.
<br> <br>
I also don't like that the people most vocal about socialism also typically come from the dead weight states who are taking more from the government than they're paying in. Must be nice to have the best of both worlds.
<br> <br>
All I want is equality and that is what it should be. Either *everyone* should have access to free healthcare or take it away from the elderly and the job shy poor people and everyone can fend for themselves. From an evolutionary stand point this is the best option. Let the weak fall to the side.
<br> <br>
The eldery have less reason than the 20 somethings for not being able to pay their own way. They've had their whole life to prepare for retirement. The 20 something has barely been working and won't get paid much. He technically deserves free care more than the eldery who did not prepare for the end of life.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
I 'm tired of these idiots ( and generally they 're old too ) crying about socialism when we 're paying into social security , medicare and medicaid .
If socialism is such a bad thing then do n't be shelfish and just try to stop younger people from getting healthcare , take it away from the old people and stamp it out for good .
I also do n't like that the people most vocal about socialism also typically come from the dead weight states who are taking more from the government than they 're paying in .
Must be nice to have the best of both worlds .
All I want is equality and that is what it should be .
Either * everyone * should have access to free healthcare or take it away from the elderly and the job shy poor people and everyone can fend for themselves .
From an evolutionary stand point this is the best option .
Let the weak fall to the side .
The eldery have less reason than the 20 somethings for not being able to pay their own way .
They 've had their whole life to prepare for retirement .
The 20 something has barely been working and wo n't get paid much .
He technically deserves free care more than the eldery who did not prepare for the end of life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
I'm tired of these idiots (and generally they're old too) crying about socialism when we're paying into social security, medicare and medicaid.
If socialism is such a bad thing then don't be shelfish and just try to stop younger people from getting healthcare, take it away from the old people and stamp it out for good.
I also don't like that the people most vocal about socialism also typically come from the dead weight states who are taking more from the government than they're paying in.
Must be nice to have the best of both worlds.
All I want is equality and that is what it should be.
Either *everyone* should have access to free healthcare or take it away from the elderly and the job shy poor people and everyone can fend for themselves.
From an evolutionary stand point this is the best option.
Let the weak fall to the side.
The eldery have less reason than the 20 somethings for not being able to pay their own way.
They've had their whole life to prepare for retirement.
The 20 something has barely been working and won't get paid much.
He technically deserves free care more than the eldery who did not prepare for the end of life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30923086</id>
	<title>Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1264582800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I speculate that socialism is evil locally to you. Please don't extrapolate it to a national scale.</p></div><p>
I suspect you missed the mocking/sarcastic tone of the OP's last sentence. Here's a hint, the quote marks around the first, "socialism," tend to imply that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I speculate that socialism is evil locally to you .
Please do n't extrapolate it to a national scale .
I suspect you missed the mocking/sarcastic tone of the OP 's last sentence .
Here 's a hint , the quote marks around the first , " socialism , " tend to imply that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I speculate that socialism is evil locally to you.
Please don't extrapolate it to a national scale.
I suspect you missed the mocking/sarcastic tone of the OP's last sentence.
Here's a hint, the quote marks around the first, "socialism," tend to imply that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30927218</id>
	<title>Re:Hello?</title>
	<author>Foobar of Borg</author>
	<datestamp>1264595100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Michael Geist is like the skinny short Brunette in all the Slasher flicks from the 90's. He's always shouting "YOU NEED TO WATCH OUT FOR THIS" but everyone else is like the dumb Jock who isn't afraid of a guy with a knife and ends up getting diced into french fries.</p></div>

</blockquote><p>Interesting analogy, but couldn't you at least come up with one involving cars?  Perhaps I should try.</p><p>
Michael Geist is like the guy who knows Pintos will shoot fire at you if you so much as bump the front bumper, but everyone else just decides to drive the damn things and get their fat scorched all over the car after being burned alive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Michael Geist is like the skinny short Brunette in all the Slasher flicks from the 90 's .
He 's always shouting " YOU NEED TO WATCH OUT FOR THIS " but everyone else is like the dumb Jock who is n't afraid of a guy with a knife and ends up getting diced into french fries .
Interesting analogy , but could n't you at least come up with one involving cars ?
Perhaps I should try .
Michael Geist is like the guy who knows Pintos will shoot fire at you if you so much as bump the front bumper , but everyone else just decides to drive the damn things and get their fat scorched all over the car after being burned alive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Michael Geist is like the skinny short Brunette in all the Slasher flicks from the 90's.
He's always shouting "YOU NEED TO WATCH OUT FOR THIS" but everyone else is like the dumb Jock who isn't afraid of a guy with a knife and ends up getting diced into french fries.
Interesting analogy, but couldn't you at least come up with one involving cars?
Perhaps I should try.
Michael Geist is like the guy who knows Pintos will shoot fire at you if you so much as bump the front bumper, but everyone else just decides to drive the damn things and get their fat scorched all over the car after being burned alive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30930212</id>
	<title>Re:Hello?</title>
	<author>Anci3nt of Days</author>
	<datestamp>1264620960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can somebody please post anything so that I can get an opinion without reading the summary?</p></div><p>They did... but were removed by your ISP following a flurry of DMCA takedown notices.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can somebody please post anything so that I can get an opinion without reading the summary ? They did... but were removed by your ISP following a flurry of DMCA takedown notices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can somebody please post anything so that I can get an opinion without reading the summary?They did... but were removed by your ISP following a flurry of DMCA takedown notices.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919480</id>
	<title>A coup</title>
	<author>wytcld</author>
	<datestamp>1264615920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is quite plainly a coup against democracies worldwide. Those attempting it should be jailed and prosecuted. If that action proves untenable, President Obama has <a href="http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/01/26/the-list-of-us-citizens-targeted-for-killing/" title="firedoglake.com">a clear option for dealing with the US members of such conspiracies</a> [firedoglake.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is quite plainly a coup against democracies worldwide .
Those attempting it should be jailed and prosecuted .
If that action proves untenable , President Obama has a clear option for dealing with the US members of such conspiracies [ firedoglake.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is quite plainly a coup against democracies worldwide.
Those attempting it should be jailed and prosecuted.
If that action proves untenable, President Obama has a clear option for dealing with the US members of such conspiracies [firedoglake.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920836</id>
	<title>Re:Terrorism is nothing compared to this threat.</title>
	<author>Large\_Hippo</author>
	<datestamp>1264620840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmmmm...  everyone on here seems to think the secrecy must be because the government is worried about "the public" finding out about horrific terms.  That seems unlikely--remember, IP law doesn't even make the top ten of most US voters' important issues.  War, health care, income taxes, education, research, crime, terrorism, etc...  all trump IP law.   So a politician's concern over public negotiations isn't likely to be that it may trigger some vague public discontent.  The politician's main concern is that a corporation that cares *immensely* about copyright law will find out that something proposed in the treaty isn't to their liking, and then spend a ton of money to remove that politician from office before the treaty is finalized.  Different wealthy corporations have different goals for copyright law (think Google vs. Publishers) and balancing them is probably impossible without making many very mad.
<br> <br>


The treaty might be good, might be bad, and there are lots of reasons to be against secret negotiations (remember, the final treaty has to be presented and voted in public).  But assuming that secrecy means the end product MUST be bad seems unfounded.  Think of it this way: if you were in charge of the negotiations, and wanted to write the most Slashdot-friendly IP treaty possible, you would HAVE to keep negotiations secret.  Otherwise the RIAA et al. would spearhead a $10B campaign  calling you soft on crime, mean to elderly people, etc, etc..., removing you from office before the treaty could ever be passed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmmm... everyone on here seems to think the secrecy must be because the government is worried about " the public " finding out about horrific terms .
That seems unlikely--remember , IP law does n't even make the top ten of most US voters ' important issues .
War , health care , income taxes , education , research , crime , terrorism , etc... all trump IP law .
So a politician 's concern over public negotiations is n't likely to be that it may trigger some vague public discontent .
The politician 's main concern is that a corporation that cares * immensely * about copyright law will find out that something proposed in the treaty is n't to their liking , and then spend a ton of money to remove that politician from office before the treaty is finalized .
Different wealthy corporations have different goals for copyright law ( think Google vs. Publishers ) and balancing them is probably impossible without making many very mad .
The treaty might be good , might be bad , and there are lots of reasons to be against secret negotiations ( remember , the final treaty has to be presented and voted in public ) .
But assuming that secrecy means the end product MUST be bad seems unfounded .
Think of it this way : if you were in charge of the negotiations , and wanted to write the most Slashdot-friendly IP treaty possible , you would HAVE to keep negotiations secret .
Otherwise the RIAA et al .
would spearhead a $ 10B campaign calling you soft on crime , mean to elderly people , etc , etc... , removing you from office before the treaty could ever be passed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmmm...  everyone on here seems to think the secrecy must be because the government is worried about "the public" finding out about horrific terms.
That seems unlikely--remember, IP law doesn't even make the top ten of most US voters' important issues.
War, health care, income taxes, education, research, crime, terrorism, etc...  all trump IP law.
So a politician's concern over public negotiations isn't likely to be that it may trigger some vague public discontent.
The politician's main concern is that a corporation that cares *immensely* about copyright law will find out that something proposed in the treaty isn't to their liking, and then spend a ton of money to remove that politician from office before the treaty is finalized.
Different wealthy corporations have different goals for copyright law (think Google vs. Publishers) and balancing them is probably impossible without making many very mad.
The treaty might be good, might be bad, and there are lots of reasons to be against secret negotiations (remember, the final treaty has to be presented and voted in public).
But assuming that secrecy means the end product MUST be bad seems unfounded.
Think of it this way: if you were in charge of the negotiations, and wanted to write the most Slashdot-friendly IP treaty possible, you would HAVE to keep negotiations secret.
Otherwise the RIAA et al.
would spearhead a $10B campaign  calling you soft on crime, mean to elderly people, etc, etc..., removing you from office before the treaty could ever be passed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919654</id>
	<title>Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?</title>
	<author>Nerdfest</author>
	<datestamp>1264616640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the new master looks and smells a lot like the old</p></div><p>Too bad we already stepped in it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the new master looks and smells a lot like the oldToo bad we already stepped in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the new master looks and smells a lot like the oldToo bad we already stepped in it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919494</id>
	<title>Notes from an ACTA information meeting</title>
	<author>Hermel</author>
	<datestamp>1264615980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I went to an ACTA public information meeting that was organized by the Swiss delegation ten days ago. They couldn't openly talk about the positions of the different countries, but from what they said, I concluded that we don't have to fear as much as the internet rumors suggest. For example, they wouldn't sign the treaty if it contained a three-strikes-provision as this would be against Swiss law. They also publish quite some information on their website, including a transparency paper that roughly describes the content of ACTA:<br><a href="https://www.ige.ch/en/legal-info/legal-areas/counterfeiting-piracy/acta.html" title="www.ige.ch" rel="nofollow">https://www.ige.ch/en/legal-info/legal-areas/counterfeiting-piracy/acta.html</a> [www.ige.ch]</p><p>Overall, they made a good and competent impression and it also seems to me that they are open to input from the public. I'm quite proud that the Swiss government seems to handle this much more democratically and transparently than others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I went to an ACTA public information meeting that was organized by the Swiss delegation ten days ago .
They could n't openly talk about the positions of the different countries , but from what they said , I concluded that we do n't have to fear as much as the internet rumors suggest .
For example , they would n't sign the treaty if it contained a three-strikes-provision as this would be against Swiss law .
They also publish quite some information on their website , including a transparency paper that roughly describes the content of ACTA : https : //www.ige.ch/en/legal-info/legal-areas/counterfeiting-piracy/acta.html [ www.ige.ch ] Overall , they made a good and competent impression and it also seems to me that they are open to input from the public .
I 'm quite proud that the Swiss government seems to handle this much more democratically and transparently than others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I went to an ACTA public information meeting that was organized by the Swiss delegation ten days ago.
They couldn't openly talk about the positions of the different countries, but from what they said, I concluded that we don't have to fear as much as the internet rumors suggest.
For example, they wouldn't sign the treaty if it contained a three-strikes-provision as this would be against Swiss law.
They also publish quite some information on their website, including a transparency paper that roughly describes the content of ACTA:https://www.ige.ch/en/legal-info/legal-areas/counterfeiting-piracy/acta.html [www.ige.ch]Overall, they made a good and competent impression and it also seems to me that they are open to input from the public.
I'm quite proud that the Swiss government seems to handle this much more democratically and transparently than others.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30921894</id>
	<title>Re:ACTA will kill people</title>
	<author>bws111</author>
	<datestamp>1264623240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know. Do you have the latest stats on how many lives were saved because these drugs were developed in the first place?  In most cases, they were developed because the companies can make money on them.  Take away patents, they lose that incentive.  Is that better?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know .
Do you have the latest stats on how many lives were saved because these drugs were developed in the first place ?
In most cases , they were developed because the companies can make money on them .
Take away patents , they lose that incentive .
Is that better ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know.
Do you have the latest stats on how many lives were saved because these drugs were developed in the first place?
In most cases, they were developed because the companies can make money on them.
Take away patents, they lose that incentive.
Is that better?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919944</id>
	<title>Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1264617720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Same old story, you have a two party system where both parties are being funded by corporations...</p></div><p>Some of the other parties are also funded by corporations, for instance Lieberman is probably going to get a lot of money from his masters in the health insurance industry, and I guess he's technically not a democrat?  Anyway, just wanted to point out that what's keeping corporate funding for the other parties low isn't a magic number greater than 2 or any ideological differences, it's that they haven't been winning and are therefore poor investments.  If that were likely to change, corporate interests would invest in 3rd, 4th, or 9th party candidates faster than flies land on poop.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Same old story , you have a two party system where both parties are being funded by corporations...Some of the other parties are also funded by corporations , for instance Lieberman is probably going to get a lot of money from his masters in the health insurance industry , and I guess he 's technically not a democrat ?
Anyway , just wanted to point out that what 's keeping corporate funding for the other parties low is n't a magic number greater than 2 or any ideological differences , it 's that they have n't been winning and are therefore poor investments .
If that were likely to change , corporate interests would invest in 3rd , 4th , or 9th party candidates faster than flies land on poop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same old story, you have a two party system where both parties are being funded by corporations...Some of the other parties are also funded by corporations, for instance Lieberman is probably going to get a lot of money from his masters in the health insurance industry, and I guess he's technically not a democrat?
Anyway, just wanted to point out that what's keeping corporate funding for the other parties low isn't a magic number greater than 2 or any ideological differences, it's that they haven't been winning and are therefore poor investments.
If that were likely to change, corporate interests would invest in 3rd, 4th, or 9th party candidates faster than flies land on poop.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920870</id>
	<title>Re:ACTA will kill people</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1264620900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Forget filesharing for a second. Anybody have the latest stats off how many have died as a direct result of us refusing developing countries generic antiretroviral drugs since they are covered by patents?</p></div><p>Ever heard of compulsory licensing?</p><p>Off the top of my head, India, Thailand, Brazil, and South Africa had all told the pharmaceuticals that the prices for retrovirals were too high and that they were going to get paid far less under a compulsory license. I believe Thailand then started importing from India. Big pharma got butthurt and has pulled products from those markets as well as refusing to develop drugs/pills for diseases/conditions specific to those regions.</p><p>Just to get an idea of the prices, Americans get charged ~$7K/person/year, Thailand was being offered $2K, India produces it for ~$1K, and pharma sells it to countries like Kenya for $500.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Forget filesharing for a second .
Anybody have the latest stats off how many have died as a direct result of us refusing developing countries generic antiretroviral drugs since they are covered by patents ? Ever heard of compulsory licensing ? Off the top of my head , India , Thailand , Brazil , and South Africa had all told the pharmaceuticals that the prices for retrovirals were too high and that they were going to get paid far less under a compulsory license .
I believe Thailand then started importing from India .
Big pharma got butthurt and has pulled products from those markets as well as refusing to develop drugs/pills for diseases/conditions specific to those regions.Just to get an idea of the prices , Americans get charged ~ $ 7K/person/year , Thailand was being offered $ 2K , India produces it for ~ $ 1K , and pharma sells it to countries like Kenya for $ 500 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forget filesharing for a second.
Anybody have the latest stats off how many have died as a direct result of us refusing developing countries generic antiretroviral drugs since they are covered by patents?Ever heard of compulsory licensing?Off the top of my head, India, Thailand, Brazil, and South Africa had all told the pharmaceuticals that the prices for retrovirals were too high and that they were going to get paid far less under a compulsory license.
I believe Thailand then started importing from India.
Big pharma got butthurt and has pulled products from those markets as well as refusing to develop drugs/pills for diseases/conditions specific to those regions.Just to get an idea of the prices, Americans get charged ~$7K/person/year, Thailand was being offered $2K, India produces it for ~$1K, and pharma sells it to countries like Kenya for $500.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30927300</id>
	<title>Re:ACTA will kill people</title>
	<author>RobertLTux</author>
	<datestamp>1264595460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about this change</p><p>1 the patent on the active ingredient lasts for X years<br>2 patents on different "mixes" are automatically denied<br>3 patents on delivery systems last for X+Y years<br>4 patents on ways to make an active ingredient last for X+W years<br>5 a company is required to make X\% of the production of a patented drug availible to the government while the patent is active at shipping cost only<br>6 a company is allowed to use people for testing IF THEY PROVIDE FULL CARE FOR THESE PEOPLE (and have only a minimum "wasteage") and they can not be sued for same (but will go up on charges if they make to many mistakes)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about this change1 the patent on the active ingredient lasts for X years2 patents on different " mixes " are automatically denied3 patents on delivery systems last for X + Y years4 patents on ways to make an active ingredient last for X + W years5 a company is required to make X \ % of the production of a patented drug availible to the government while the patent is active at shipping cost only6 a company is allowed to use people for testing IF THEY PROVIDE FULL CARE FOR THESE PEOPLE ( and have only a minimum " wasteage " ) and they can not be sued for same ( but will go up on charges if they make to many mistakes )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about this change1 the patent on the active ingredient lasts for X years2 patents on different "mixes" are automatically denied3 patents on delivery systems last for X+Y years4 patents on ways to make an active ingredient last for X+W years5 a company is required to make X\% of the production of a patented drug availible to the government while the patent is active at shipping cost only6 a company is allowed to use people for testing IF THEY PROVIDE FULL CARE FOR THESE PEOPLE (and have only a minimum "wasteage") and they can not be sued for same (but will go up on charges if they make to many mistakes)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919152</id>
	<title>how's that hope and change working out for you?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264614660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because from where I sit the new master looks and smells a lot like the old.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because from where I sit the new master looks and smells a lot like the old.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because from where I sit the new master looks and smells a lot like the old.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919788</id>
	<title>Re:Notes from an ACTA information meeting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264617180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can you believe the same government that came up with IPRED?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can you believe the same government that came up with IPRED ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can you believe the same government that came up with IPRED?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919326</id>
	<title>Unprecedented secretive legislative attempt</title>
	<author>openfrog</author>
	<datestamp>1264615380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the European Parliament (quoted in TFA):</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) will contain a new international benchmark for legal frameworks on what is termed intellectual property right enforcement. The content as known to the public is clearly legislative in character. Further, the Council confirms that ACTA includes civil enforcement and criminal law measures. Since there can not be secret objectives regarding legislation in a democracy, the principles established in the ECJ Turco case must be upheld</i> </p></div><p>From TFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The inescapable conclusion is that the ACTA approach is hardly standard.  Rather, it represents a major shift toward greater secrecy in the negotiation of international treaties on intellectual property in an obvious attempt to avoid public participation and scrutiny.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the European Parliament ( quoted in TFA ) : The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement ( ACTA ) will contain a new international benchmark for legal frameworks on what is termed intellectual property right enforcement .
The content as known to the public is clearly legislative in character .
Further , the Council confirms that ACTA includes civil enforcement and criminal law measures .
Since there can not be secret objectives regarding legislation in a democracy , the principles established in the ECJ Turco case must be upheld From TFA : The inescapable conclusion is that the ACTA approach is hardly standard .
Rather , it represents a major shift toward greater secrecy in the negotiation of international treaties on intellectual property in an obvious attempt to avoid public participation and scrutiny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the European Parliament (quoted in TFA): The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) will contain a new international benchmark for legal frameworks on what is termed intellectual property right enforcement.
The content as known to the public is clearly legislative in character.
Further, the Council confirms that ACTA includes civil enforcement and criminal law measures.
Since there can not be secret objectives regarding legislation in a democracy, the principles established in the ECJ Turco case must be upheld From TFA:The inescapable conclusion is that the ACTA approach is hardly standard.
Rather, it represents a major shift toward greater secrecy in the negotiation of international treaties on intellectual property in an obvious attempt to avoid public participation and scrutiny.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920364</id>
	<title>Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264619400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>At least this administration has yet to commit treason.</i></p><p>I voted for this administration, yet I think that it has indeed committed treason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least this administration has yet to commit treason.I voted for this administration , yet I think that it has indeed committed treason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least this administration has yet to commit treason.I voted for this administration, yet I think that it has indeed committed treason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920454</id>
	<title>Re:Unprecedented secretive legislative attempt</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264619700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well. This means that the treaty can not possibly be legal.</p><p>Which means it is not law, no matter what politicians say. Because they are not above the law.</p><p>Which means, we do not have to follow it.</p><p>And, <em>yes</em>: If that means I will go to jail in such a terrorist oppressive state, then so be it! I will walk every single step with pride in every single of my fibers.<br>And so should you!</p><p>(Which does not mean, that if I can, I will move to a more free country.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well .
This means that the treaty can not possibly be legal.Which means it is not law , no matter what politicians say .
Because they are not above the law.Which means , we do not have to follow it.And , yes : If that means I will go to jail in such a terrorist oppressive state , then so be it !
I will walk every single step with pride in every single of my fibers.And so should you !
( Which does not mean , that if I can , I will move to a more free country .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well.
This means that the treaty can not possibly be legal.Which means it is not law, no matter what politicians say.
Because they are not above the law.Which means, we do not have to follow it.And, yes: If that means I will go to jail in such a terrorist oppressive state, then so be it!
I will walk every single step with pride in every single of my fibers.And so should you!
(Which does not mean, that if I can, I will move to a more free country.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920092</id>
	<title>Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?</title>
	<author>JonStewartMill</author>
	<datestamp>1264618500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's too soon to tell, really.  At least this administration has yet to commit treason.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's too soon to tell , really .
At least this administration has yet to commit treason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's too soon to tell, really.
At least this administration has yet to commit treason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30922860</id>
	<title>Re:Notes from an ACTA information meeting</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1264625400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What will be the effects of ACTA on citizens?

</p><p>The main goal of ACTA is to combat the <b>large counterfeiting and piracy activities which present big risks for public safety and health</b>. The agreement is not meant to intrude in the private sphere of individual citizens. The consequences of counterfeiting and piracy touch everyone and are daily hazards. Counterfeiting and piracy do not only infringe on intellectual property rights and cause enormous economic losses. <b>They present a direct threat to consumer and patient health and safety</b>. ACTA intendes to attack this problem and is only one of various initiatives on the part of Switzerland to fight counterfeiting and piracy.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Wow, just wow.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What will be the effects of ACTA on citizens ?
The main goal of ACTA is to combat the large counterfeiting and piracy activities which present big risks for public safety and health .
The agreement is not meant to intrude in the private sphere of individual citizens .
The consequences of counterfeiting and piracy touch everyone and are daily hazards .
Counterfeiting and piracy do not only infringe on intellectual property rights and cause enormous economic losses .
They present a direct threat to consumer and patient health and safety .
ACTA intendes to attack this problem and is only one of various initiatives on the part of Switzerland to fight counterfeiting and piracy .
Wow , just wow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What will be the effects of ACTA on citizens?
The main goal of ACTA is to combat the large counterfeiting and piracy activities which present big risks for public safety and health.
The agreement is not meant to intrude in the private sphere of individual citizens.
The consequences of counterfeiting and piracy touch everyone and are daily hazards.
Counterfeiting and piracy do not only infringe on intellectual property rights and cause enormous economic losses.
They present a direct threat to consumer and patient health and safety.
ACTA intendes to attack this problem and is only one of various initiatives on the part of Switzerland to fight counterfeiting and piracy.
Wow, just wow.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919212</id>
	<title>Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264614900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same old story, you have a two party system where both parties are being funded by corporations, and God forbid you should suggest some kind of government regulation because that is "socialism" and as every patriotic American knows Socialism = Evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same old story , you have a two party system where both parties are being funded by corporations , and God forbid you should suggest some kind of government regulation because that is " socialism " and as every patriotic American knows Socialism = Evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same old story, you have a two party system where both parties are being funded by corporations, and God forbid you should suggest some kind of government regulation because that is "socialism" and as every patriotic American knows Socialism = Evil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919324</id>
	<title>Michael Geist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264615380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For what it's worth, in case you (as I) were wondering who Michael Geist is (I don't want to end up passing on links to some guy who turns out to be a conspiracy theorist or something), he's a University of Ottawa professor, serving as their chair in Internet law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For what it 's worth , in case you ( as I ) were wondering who Michael Geist is ( I do n't want to end up passing on links to some guy who turns out to be a conspiracy theorist or something ) , he 's a University of Ottawa professor , serving as their chair in Internet law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For what it's worth, in case you (as I) were wondering who Michael Geist is (I don't want to end up passing on links to some guy who turns out to be a conspiracy theorist or something), he's a University of Ottawa professor, serving as their chair in Internet law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920006</id>
	<title>Re:ACTA will kill people</title>
	<author>jbeaupre</author>
	<datestamp>1264618080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When people start complaining about the high price of patented drugs, I ask them this: are you fine with just the drugs available today?  Ok, then eliminate patents.  You won't get any new drugs, but we don't need them.  If you think new drugs are needed, then you might want to back off eliminating patents for pharmaceuticals.</p><p>Don't think you can rely on governments to pick up the slack.  Seen any phase three clinical trials paid for by a government lately?  Not to mention that government disease research funding is allocated by politics, not by need.  That's unlikely to miraculously change with drugs.</p><p>So, happy or want more?  The choice is yours.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When people start complaining about the high price of patented drugs , I ask them this : are you fine with just the drugs available today ?
Ok , then eliminate patents .
You wo n't get any new drugs , but we do n't need them .
If you think new drugs are needed , then you might want to back off eliminating patents for pharmaceuticals.Do n't think you can rely on governments to pick up the slack .
Seen any phase three clinical trials paid for by a government lately ?
Not to mention that government disease research funding is allocated by politics , not by need .
That 's unlikely to miraculously change with drugs.So , happy or want more ?
The choice is yours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When people start complaining about the high price of patented drugs, I ask them this: are you fine with just the drugs available today?
Ok, then eliminate patents.
You won't get any new drugs, but we don't need them.
If you think new drugs are needed, then you might want to back off eliminating patents for pharmaceuticals.Don't think you can rely on governments to pick up the slack.
Seen any phase three clinical trials paid for by a government lately?
Not to mention that government disease research funding is allocated by politics, not by need.
That's unlikely to miraculously change with drugs.So, happy or want more?
The choice is yours.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920510</id>
	<title>Re:ACTA will kill people</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264619880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don&rsquo;t think the developing countries care much.</p><p>Just like Brasil. They simply took the recipe, produced it themselves, and told the foreign country to <em>go fuck themselves</em>.<br>Now that is what I call a (rare exceptional case of) government for the people!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I don    t think the developing countries care much.Just like Brasil .
They simply took the recipe , produced it themselves , and told the foreign country to go fuck themselves.Now that is what I call a ( rare exceptional case of ) government for the people !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don’t think the developing countries care much.Just like Brasil.
They simply took the recipe, produced it themselves, and told the foreign country to go fuck themselves.Now that is what I call a (rare exceptional case of) government for the people!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919112</id>
	<title>G$$Gle</title>
	<author>For a Free Internet</author>
	<datestamp>1264614600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just another shadowy instrument of the Italian islamocommunist world government, which was established in 1992 by Al Gore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just another shadowy instrument of the Italian islamocommunist world government , which was established in 1992 by Al Gore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just another shadowy instrument of the Italian islamocommunist world government, which was established in 1992 by Al Gore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920830</id>
	<title>Re:ACTA will kill people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264620840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As soon as Big Pharma spends as much on research as on marketing you will have a case. Until then: STFU fucking industry shill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As soon as Big Pharma spends as much on research as on marketing you will have a case .
Until then : STFU fucking industry shill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As soon as Big Pharma spends as much on research as on marketing you will have a case.
Until then: STFU fucking industry shill.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30928144</id>
	<title>it's worse than I feared</title>
	<author>KwKSilver</author>
	<datestamp>1264600440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Casual perusal of the linked pages and the links there suggests that the civil aspects of <i>require</i> judges to take action based on unsubstantiated allegations by the "rights holders," oddly(?) I saw nothing to suggest that "rights holders have to prove that they have any rights.  However, its the <i> <b>criminal enforcement</b> </i> aspects of what is being proposed that are really scary:<blockquote><div><p>The proposal would extend criminal enforcement to both (1) cases of a commercial nature; and (2) cases involving significant willful copyright and trademark infringement even where there is no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain.  The treaty would require each country to establish a laundry list of penalties - including imprisonment - sufficient to deter future acts of infringement (specific language is "include sentences of imprisonment as well as monetary fines, from the first link:</p></div></blockquote><p>

Item (2) would include Jammie Thomas, what are we talking about here?  Prison time for downloading songs?  Looks like it.  Lets see, she had what 3 +/- 1 hours worth of listening time<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... extending the financial damages ratios to the criminal case suggests<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....  Nah too complicated: one year in prison per song is simpler.  Ta-da: 20 years for Jammie.  Ought to make Big Media happy.  Wow!  You know, if some 19 year old girl gets 50 (or 500) years in prison for downloading songs and her father or husband takes a potshot at some media mogul or Bono with a high powered rifle, they won't understand why.  In-fucking-credible. <br> <br>

People seem to think that this stuff needs Congressional approval.  I'm not so sure, as it been pointed out by others that this is being negotiated by the Executive Branch as a trade agreement rather than a treaty per se so that at least some parts could be established by Presidential proclamation in the U.S.  Assuming that some Congressional action is needed, who here really thinks that the U.S. Congress gives a shit about individual rights?  The same Congress where Orrin Hatch proposed making it legal for media companies to blow up the computers of <i>accused</i> infringers <b> by remote control</b>?  Good luck.  If Congress gets hold of it, we'll be lucky if downloading paid-for songs from Amazon or iTunes does't make you subject to the death penalty. The courts, maybe, yeah like the Supreme Court, which just essentially negated the laws regarding political bribery.  Good luck, there, too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Casual perusal of the linked pages and the links there suggests that the civil aspects of require judges to take action based on unsubstantiated allegations by the " rights holders , " oddly ( ?
) I saw nothing to suggest that " rights holders have to prove that they have any rights .
However , its the criminal enforcement aspects of what is being proposed that are really scary : The proposal would extend criminal enforcement to both ( 1 ) cases of a commercial nature ; and ( 2 ) cases involving significant willful copyright and trademark infringement even where there is no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain .
The treaty would require each country to establish a laundry list of penalties - including imprisonment - sufficient to deter future acts of infringement ( specific language is " include sentences of imprisonment as well as monetary fines , from the first link : Item ( 2 ) would include Jammie Thomas , what are we talking about here ?
Prison time for downloading songs ?
Looks like it .
Lets see , she had what 3 + /- 1 hours worth of listening time ... extending the financial damages ratios to the criminal case suggests .... Nah too complicated : one year in prison per song is simpler .
Ta-da : 20 years for Jammie .
Ought to make Big Media happy .
Wow ! You know , if some 19 year old girl gets 50 ( or 500 ) years in prison for downloading songs and her father or husband takes a potshot at some media mogul or Bono with a high powered rifle , they wo n't understand why .
In-fucking-credible . People seem to think that this stuff needs Congressional approval .
I 'm not so sure , as it been pointed out by others that this is being negotiated by the Executive Branch as a trade agreement rather than a treaty per se so that at least some parts could be established by Presidential proclamation in the U.S. Assuming that some Congressional action is needed , who here really thinks that the U.S. Congress gives a shit about individual rights ?
The same Congress where Orrin Hatch proposed making it legal for media companies to blow up the computers of accused infringers by remote control ?
Good luck .
If Congress gets hold of it , we 'll be lucky if downloading paid-for songs from Amazon or iTunes does't make you subject to the death penalty .
The courts , maybe , yeah like the Supreme Court , which just essentially negated the laws regarding political bribery .
Good luck , there , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Casual perusal of the linked pages and the links there suggests that the civil aspects of require judges to take action based on unsubstantiated allegations by the "rights holders," oddly(?
) I saw nothing to suggest that "rights holders have to prove that they have any rights.
However, its the  criminal enforcement  aspects of what is being proposed that are really scary:The proposal would extend criminal enforcement to both (1) cases of a commercial nature; and (2) cases involving significant willful copyright and trademark infringement even where there is no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain.
The treaty would require each country to establish a laundry list of penalties - including imprisonment - sufficient to deter future acts of infringement (specific language is "include sentences of imprisonment as well as monetary fines, from the first link:

Item (2) would include Jammie Thomas, what are we talking about here?
Prison time for downloading songs?
Looks like it.
Lets see, she had what 3 +/- 1 hours worth of listening time ... extending the financial damages ratios to the criminal case suggests ....  Nah too complicated: one year in prison per song is simpler.
Ta-da: 20 years for Jammie.
Ought to make Big Media happy.
Wow!  You know, if some 19 year old girl gets 50 (or 500) years in prison for downloading songs and her father or husband takes a potshot at some media mogul or Bono with a high powered rifle, they won't understand why.
In-fucking-credible.  

People seem to think that this stuff needs Congressional approval.
I'm not so sure, as it been pointed out by others that this is being negotiated by the Executive Branch as a trade agreement rather than a treaty per se so that at least some parts could be established by Presidential proclamation in the U.S.  Assuming that some Congressional action is needed, who here really thinks that the U.S. Congress gives a shit about individual rights?
The same Congress where Orrin Hatch proposed making it legal for media companies to blow up the computers of accused infringers  by remote control?
Good luck.
If Congress gets hold of it, we'll be lucky if downloading paid-for songs from Amazon or iTunes does't make you subject to the death penalty.
The courts, maybe, yeah like the Supreme Court, which just essentially negated the laws regarding political bribery.
Good luck, there, too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919724</id>
	<title>ACTA will kill people</title>
	<author>BlueParrot</author>
	<datestamp>1264616880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forget filesharing for a second. Anybody have the latest stats off how many have died as a direct result of us refusing developing countries generic antiretroviral drugs since they are covered by patents?</p><p>If you think the main issue here is about file-sharing and the MPAA, think again. The ACTA negotiations involve representatives from the Pharmaceutical industry but notably absent is the WHO , Amnesty, Doctors without Frontiers , and a number of other human rights organizations.</p><p>Basically if this treaty is allowed to go through it is likely millions will continue to die a morbid death needlessly. Focusing on file-sharing and the RIAA is only going to result in the Pharma industry getting to screw over the citizens of developing countries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forget filesharing for a second .
Anybody have the latest stats off how many have died as a direct result of us refusing developing countries generic antiretroviral drugs since they are covered by patents ? If you think the main issue here is about file-sharing and the MPAA , think again .
The ACTA negotiations involve representatives from the Pharmaceutical industry but notably absent is the WHO , Amnesty , Doctors without Frontiers , and a number of other human rights organizations.Basically if this treaty is allowed to go through it is likely millions will continue to die a morbid death needlessly .
Focusing on file-sharing and the RIAA is only going to result in the Pharma industry getting to screw over the citizens of developing countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forget filesharing for a second.
Anybody have the latest stats off how many have died as a direct result of us refusing developing countries generic antiretroviral drugs since they are covered by patents?If you think the main issue here is about file-sharing and the MPAA, think again.
The ACTA negotiations involve representatives from the Pharmaceutical industry but notably absent is the WHO , Amnesty, Doctors without Frontiers , and a number of other human rights organizations.Basically if this treaty is allowed to go through it is likely millions will continue to die a morbid death needlessly.
Focusing on file-sharing and the RIAA is only going to result in the Pharma industry getting to screw over the citizens of developing countries.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919354</id>
	<title>Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264615500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I HOPE you have some CHANGE you can spare</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I HOPE you have some CHANGE you can spare</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I HOPE you have some CHANGE you can spare</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920370</id>
	<title>Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?</title>
	<author>icebraining</author>
	<datestamp>1264619400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And the last preferred the government <i>rune by</i> the corporations. That's Fascism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the last preferred the government rune by the corporations .
That 's Fascism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the last preferred the government rune by the corporations.
That's Fascism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919322</id>
	<title>Terrorism is nothing compared to this threat.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264615380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is far more of a threat to freedom and democracy than terrorism ever could hope to be.</p><p>Governments negotiating secret treaties with corporations concerning the dispersion of information? That's a stake right through the heart of liberty, far more damaging than suicide bombers or terrorist attacks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is far more of a threat to freedom and democracy than terrorism ever could hope to be.Governments negotiating secret treaties with corporations concerning the dispersion of information ?
That 's a stake right through the heart of liberty , far more damaging than suicide bombers or terrorist attacks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is far more of a threat to freedom and democracy than terrorism ever could hope to be.Governments negotiating secret treaties with corporations concerning the dispersion of information?
That's a stake right through the heart of liberty, far more damaging than suicide bombers or terrorist attacks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920384</id>
	<title>Re:Terrorism is nothing compared to this threat.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264619460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, a real threat about imaginary property is more important, than an imaginary threat about real property?</p><p>Gee. News at 11. Who'dda thunka that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , a real threat about imaginary property is more important , than an imaginary threat about real property ? Gee .
News at 11 .
Who'dda thunka that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, a real threat about imaginary property is more important, than an imaginary threat about real property?Gee.
News at 11.
Who'dda thunka that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919574</id>
	<title>Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1264616280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Same old story, you have a two party system where both parties are being funded by corporations, and God forbid you should suggest some kind of government regulation because that is "socialism" and as every patriotic American knows Socialism = Evil.</p></div><p>And what is <b>social</b> security?  A mild form of socialism.  What are taxes (especially those that go to public owned parks, libraries and schools)?  <br> <br>

I believe that we've slowly warmed up to the idea that the best economic system lies somewhere between pure capitalism and pure socialism.  And even on a state by state basis you will find a wide array of where each state sits.  Take Minnesota versus Texas, in Texas it might be well known to all the patriotic 'wing-nut conservatives' that Socialism is Evil but in Minnesota I can tell you that the patriotic 'bleeding heart liberals' that Socialist programs are necessary to protect the poor and sick.  I know that the political winds of politics are different because I grew up in Minnesota under the poverty line on <a href="http://www.dhs.state.mn.us/main/idcplg?IdcService=GET\_DYNAMIC\_CONVERSION&amp;RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased&amp;dDocName=id\_006255" title="state.mn.us">Minnesota Care</a> [state.mn.us] and received college grants based on need.  Everyone around me loved it.  I now live in Northern Virginia where I leave that out of conversations after listening to a few folks rail on "Communist Minnesota."  Fine.  <br> <br>

Decentralization of power back to the states is good.  And shows that many models can work for many different people.  I speculate that socialism is evil locally to you.  Please don't extrapolate it to a national scale.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Same old story , you have a two party system where both parties are being funded by corporations , and God forbid you should suggest some kind of government regulation because that is " socialism " and as every patriotic American knows Socialism = Evil.And what is social security ?
A mild form of socialism .
What are taxes ( especially those that go to public owned parks , libraries and schools ) ?
I believe that we 've slowly warmed up to the idea that the best economic system lies somewhere between pure capitalism and pure socialism .
And even on a state by state basis you will find a wide array of where each state sits .
Take Minnesota versus Texas , in Texas it might be well known to all the patriotic 'wing-nut conservatives ' that Socialism is Evil but in Minnesota I can tell you that the patriotic 'bleeding heart liberals ' that Socialist programs are necessary to protect the poor and sick .
I know that the political winds of politics are different because I grew up in Minnesota under the poverty line on Minnesota Care [ state.mn.us ] and received college grants based on need .
Everyone around me loved it .
I now live in Northern Virginia where I leave that out of conversations after listening to a few folks rail on " Communist Minnesota .
" Fine .
Decentralization of power back to the states is good .
And shows that many models can work for many different people .
I speculate that socialism is evil locally to you .
Please do n't extrapolate it to a national scale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same old story, you have a two party system where both parties are being funded by corporations, and God forbid you should suggest some kind of government regulation because that is "socialism" and as every patriotic American knows Socialism = Evil.And what is social security?
A mild form of socialism.
What are taxes (especially those that go to public owned parks, libraries and schools)?
I believe that we've slowly warmed up to the idea that the best economic system lies somewhere between pure capitalism and pure socialism.
And even on a state by state basis you will find a wide array of where each state sits.
Take Minnesota versus Texas, in Texas it might be well known to all the patriotic 'wing-nut conservatives' that Socialism is Evil but in Minnesota I can tell you that the patriotic 'bleeding heart liberals' that Socialist programs are necessary to protect the poor and sick.
I know that the political winds of politics are different because I grew up in Minnesota under the poverty line on Minnesota Care [state.mn.us] and received college grants based on need.
Everyone around me loved it.
I now live in Northern Virginia where I leave that out of conversations after listening to a few folks rail on "Communist Minnesota.
"  Fine.
Decentralization of power back to the states is good.
And shows that many models can work for many different people.
I speculate that socialism is evil locally to you.
Please don't extrapolate it to a national scale.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30924618</id>
	<title>Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264586880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Minnesota?  About the only thing they have going for them is the scotch
tape plant, which will probably be moved to China if it hasn't been
already, and the pretty much the rest are hardscrabble subsistence farmers
who try to scratch out a living during the two months of the year when
the ground isn't frozen.  At least that's what I heard down in
Texas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Minnesota ?
About the only thing they have going for them is the scotch tape plant , which will probably be moved to China if it has n't been already , and the pretty much the rest are hardscrabble subsistence farmers who try to scratch out a living during the two months of the year when the ground is n't frozen .
At least that 's what I heard down in Texas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Minnesota?
About the only thing they have going for them is the scotch
tape plant, which will probably be moved to China if it hasn't been
already, and the pretty much the rest are hardscrabble subsistence farmers
who try to scratch out a living during the two months of the year when
the ground isn't frozen.
At least that's what I heard down in
Texas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919134</id>
	<title>Hello?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264614600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can somebody please post anything so that I can get an opinion without reading the summary?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can somebody please post anything so that I can get an opinion without reading the summary ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can somebody please post anything so that I can get an opinion without reading the summary?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920774</id>
	<title>Re:Terrorism is nothing compared to this threat.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264620660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah but a building full of people don't die when you sign a piece of paper so you can't sensationalize that or incite alarm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah but a building full of people do n't die when you sign a piece of paper so you ca n't sensationalize that or incite alarm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah but a building full of people don't die when you sign a piece of paper so you can't sensationalize that or incite alarm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30930828</id>
	<title>Re:ACTA will kill people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264671660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When people start complaining about the high price of patented drugs, I ask them this: are you fine with just the drugs available today?  Ok, then eliminate patents.  You won't get any new drugs, but we don't need them.  If you think new drugs are needed, then you might want to back off eliminating patents for pharmaceuticals.</p><p>Don't think you can rely on governments to pick up the slack.  Seen any phase three clinical trials paid for by a government lately?  Not to mention that government disease research funding is allocated by politics, not by need.  That's unlikely to miraculously change with drugs.</p><p>So, happy or want more?  The choice is yours.</p></div><p>Perhaps the government is overly reliant on bigPharma to fund research and if bigPharma had less power, alternative funding arrangements would allow scientists to return to the public domain of the academia?</p><p>Also, another issue is copyright and publishing within academic journals. I'm yet to meet a competent research scientist who doesn't kick a big kick out of of the idea of being peer-reviewed. But I'm also yet to meet an academic who has full access to the scope of research material for their field, and this is largely because of the licensing fees academic libraries are forced to pay to access the journals.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When people start complaining about the high price of patented drugs , I ask them this : are you fine with just the drugs available today ?
Ok , then eliminate patents .
You wo n't get any new drugs , but we do n't need them .
If you think new drugs are needed , then you might want to back off eliminating patents for pharmaceuticals.Do n't think you can rely on governments to pick up the slack .
Seen any phase three clinical trials paid for by a government lately ?
Not to mention that government disease research funding is allocated by politics , not by need .
That 's unlikely to miraculously change with drugs.So , happy or want more ?
The choice is yours.Perhaps the government is overly reliant on bigPharma to fund research and if bigPharma had less power , alternative funding arrangements would allow scientists to return to the public domain of the academia ? Also , another issue is copyright and publishing within academic journals .
I 'm yet to meet a competent research scientist who does n't kick a big kick out of of the idea of being peer-reviewed .
But I 'm also yet to meet an academic who has full access to the scope of research material for their field , and this is largely because of the licensing fees academic libraries are forced to pay to access the journals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When people start complaining about the high price of patented drugs, I ask them this: are you fine with just the drugs available today?
Ok, then eliminate patents.
You won't get any new drugs, but we don't need them.
If you think new drugs are needed, then you might want to back off eliminating patents for pharmaceuticals.Don't think you can rely on governments to pick up the slack.
Seen any phase three clinical trials paid for by a government lately?
Not to mention that government disease research funding is allocated by politics, not by need.
That's unlikely to miraculously change with drugs.So, happy or want more?
The choice is yours.Perhaps the government is overly reliant on bigPharma to fund research and if bigPharma had less power, alternative funding arrangements would allow scientists to return to the public domain of the academia?Also, another issue is copyright and publishing within academic journals.
I'm yet to meet a competent research scientist who doesn't kick a big kick out of of the idea of being peer-reviewed.
But I'm also yet to meet an academic who has full access to the scope of research material for their field, and this is largely because of the licensing fees academic libraries are forced to pay to access the journals.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920006</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_163206_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30922860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_163206_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30927218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_163206_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30921894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_163206_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_163206_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30928144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_163206_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_163206_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_163206_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_163206_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30924784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_163206_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30927972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_163206_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30930212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_163206_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_163206_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_163206_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30923086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_163206_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_163206_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30931236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_163206_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_163206_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30927300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_163206_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_163206_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_163206_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30921784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_163206_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30922152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_163206_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_163206_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30930828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_163206_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30921192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_163206_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30924618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_163206_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_163206_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_163206_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_163206_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_163206.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30928144
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_163206.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920092
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919212
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30921784
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919574
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30921192
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30924618
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30922152
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30923086
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919586
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920370
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920718
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30924784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30931236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_163206.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919480
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_163206.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919286
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30927218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30930212
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_163206.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30922860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919788
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_163206.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919324
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_163206.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919112
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_163206.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30919724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30921894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920006
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30920830
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30930828
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30927300
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_163206.30927972
</commentlist>
</conversation>
