<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_28_2145202</id>
	<title>Neurons Created Directly From Skin Cells</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1264672140000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://alx5000atalx5000dotnet/" rel="nofollow">alx5000</a> writes <i>"The Times is running a story about a neurologic breakthrough that could revolutionise treatments for conditions such as Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's: <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/medicine/article7005401.ece">Neurons have been created directly from skin cells</a> for the first time. Quoting neurobiologist Professor Jack Price: 'This suggests that there are no great rules &mdash; you can reprogramme anything into anything else.' The article also points out that this method could work around the ethical issues surrounding embryonic stem-cell research."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>alx5000 writes " The Times is running a story about a neurologic breakthrough that could revolutionise treatments for conditions such as Parkinson 's disease and Alzheimer 's : Neurons have been created directly from skin cells for the first time .
Quoting neurobiologist Professor Jack Price : 'This suggests that there are no great rules    you can reprogramme anything into anything else .
' The article also points out that this method could work around the ethical issues surrounding embryonic stem-cell research .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>alx5000 writes "The Times is running a story about a neurologic breakthrough that could revolutionise treatments for conditions such as Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's: Neurons have been created directly from skin cells for the first time.
Quoting neurobiologist Professor Jack Price: 'This suggests that there are no great rules — you can reprogramme anything into anything else.
' The article also points out that this method could work around the ethical issues surrounding embryonic stem-cell research.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30945330</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect explanation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264696140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You wouldn't know... you've never had sex with your foreskin intact.</p></div><p>And neither have you, <em>girlintraining</em>, self-proclaimed "dyke".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You would n't know... you 've never had sex with your foreskin intact.And neither have you , girlintraining , self-proclaimed " dyke " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You wouldn't know... you've never had sex with your foreskin intact.And neither have you, girlintraining, self-proclaimed "dyke".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943626</id>
	<title>Is anyone worried about this virus escaping?...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264683000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is anyone worried about this virus escaping?  We could all end up as a big blog of brain cells sitting on the floor!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is anyone worried about this virus escaping ?
We could all end up as a big blog of brain cells sitting on the floor !
: D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is anyone worried about this virus escaping?
We could all end up as a big blog of brain cells sitting on the floor!
:D</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942602</id>
	<title>Re:That's awesome!</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1264678140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Is this possibly a cure for Alzheimers, as well?</p></div></blockquote><p> No.  The beta-amyloid plaques that damage and ultimately kill bain cells would still be present.  The plaques themselves must be destroyed, not just throw billions of new neurons at the problem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this possibly a cure for Alzheimers , as well ?
No. The beta-amyloid plaques that damage and ultimately kill bain cells would still be present .
The plaques themselves must be destroyed , not just throw billions of new neurons at the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this possibly a cure for Alzheimers, as well?
No.  The beta-amyloid plaques that damage and ultimately kill bain cells would still be present.
The plaques themselves must be destroyed, not just throw billions of new neurons at the problem.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30947532</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect explanation</title>
	<author>olman</author>
	<datestamp>1264764900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For the very few men that have been circumsized as an adult and had an opportunity to experience sex both ways -- they say that sex is very disappointing after. Some become suicidally depressed.</p></div><p>As an male who had his weenie chopped in his 30s, I can say I enjoy sex whole a lot more without the painful splits in the foreskin that take forever to heal and general constriction/pain due to naturally moderately undersized foreskin.</p><p>I only wish public healthcare didn't drag their heels about it for a decade due to general perceptions over here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the very few men that have been circumsized as an adult and had an opportunity to experience sex both ways -- they say that sex is very disappointing after .
Some become suicidally depressed.As an male who had his weenie chopped in his 30s , I can say I enjoy sex whole a lot more without the painful splits in the foreskin that take forever to heal and general constriction/pain due to naturally moderately undersized foreskin.I only wish public healthcare did n't drag their heels about it for a decade due to general perceptions over here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the very few men that have been circumsized as an adult and had an opportunity to experience sex both ways -- they say that sex is very disappointing after.
Some become suicidally depressed.As an male who had his weenie chopped in his 30s, I can say I enjoy sex whole a lot more without the painful splits in the foreskin that take forever to heal and general constriction/pain due to naturally moderately undersized foreskin.I only wish public healthcare didn't drag their heels about it for a decade due to general perceptions over here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30991732</id>
	<title>Re:Religious issue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265047500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jews are Pigs. Yep, fat in riches because they band together and encourage education. Something people should be proud of.</p><p>
&nbsp; Christians are devils. Yep, most violent religion in history. Lots of people died in the name of "Chirst". I'm Christian, gotta know your own history.</p><p>
&nbsp; Muslims are evil doers. In the eyes of most Christians. Islam is a very old respectful religion. Again, history. All of the violence of this religion is no where near Christianity, and by violence I mean small sects of extremists.</p><p>Blacks are apes. Again, go go white Christians.</p><p>Women are property. Seems to be a problem around the world</p><p>Babies are fetal tissue. When they're developing</p><p>"And at what time to you "choose" to stop calling it "fetal tissue" and start calling it a "baby" (human, person or otherwise)??"<br>Anything with "human" DNA is "human". My skin is "human", a corpse is "human" and living corpse without a brain is "human" but also known as a vegetable. A person does NOT have to be human. All it has to do is be self-aware. A very young child is not self-aware.</p><p>You call it "Pro-Choice" because you can choose. "Pro-Life" just means you have no choice and the child must be allowed to live.</p><p>Life itself has no intrinsic value, if it does, show me the math. The only value is your own life. Logically, the best way to ensure your own life is to be in a society where people protect eachother's lives. Your offspring carry your own DNA, which is effectively you only way to living past your own death. If you do not wish to have an offspring, that is both your's and the partner's choice. Once that offspring is born, you would want laws/rules in place to help protect your offspring since it helps the survival of your DNA.</p><p>Logically, the only reason to make murder illegal is because helping someone else increases your chance of being helped. Protecting other women's reproductive choices helps protect your own partner's reproductive choice and protecting the life of another person's child helps you protect your child, but protecting the life of an unborn child that even the mother does not want does not help you at all.</p><p>This logic also applies to racism. Let say I was a Nazi and I went along with the exterminations. After the genocide was done, what would there be to stop the law from suddenly saying that Germans with freckles like me need to be exterminated? Protecting the Jews would also indirectly protect myself. People who are racist, once they've accomplished their goal, will find something else wrong/different to be racist about. It's an unstable variable.</p><p>In the end, everyone dies. Live and let live.</p><p>I know what I said was dry and had no emotion, but emotion should NEVER be used for important decisions. Emotion is analogous to flipping a coin to see how you "feel" that this moment. Emotion causes people to kill other people and people to love each other for no reason. It's a random variable. Save emotions for minor decisions. Logic is that thing you use when you're emotionally angry at someone but you keep yourself from decking them in the face.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jews are Pigs .
Yep , fat in riches because they band together and encourage education .
Something people should be proud of .
  Christians are devils .
Yep , most violent religion in history .
Lots of people died in the name of " Chirst " .
I 'm Christian , got ta know your own history .
  Muslims are evil doers .
In the eyes of most Christians .
Islam is a very old respectful religion .
Again , history .
All of the violence of this religion is no where near Christianity , and by violence I mean small sects of extremists.Blacks are apes .
Again , go go white Christians.Women are property .
Seems to be a problem around the worldBabies are fetal tissue .
When they 're developing " And at what time to you " choose " to stop calling it " fetal tissue " and start calling it a " baby " ( human , person or otherwise ) ? ?
" Anything with " human " DNA is " human " .
My skin is " human " , a corpse is " human " and living corpse without a brain is " human " but also known as a vegetable .
A person does NOT have to be human .
All it has to do is be self-aware .
A very young child is not self-aware.You call it " Pro-Choice " because you can choose .
" Pro-Life " just means you have no choice and the child must be allowed to live.Life itself has no intrinsic value , if it does , show me the math .
The only value is your own life .
Logically , the best way to ensure your own life is to be in a society where people protect eachother 's lives .
Your offspring carry your own DNA , which is effectively you only way to living past your own death .
If you do not wish to have an offspring , that is both your 's and the partner 's choice .
Once that offspring is born , you would want laws/rules in place to help protect your offspring since it helps the survival of your DNA.Logically , the only reason to make murder illegal is because helping someone else increases your chance of being helped .
Protecting other women 's reproductive choices helps protect your own partner 's reproductive choice and protecting the life of another person 's child helps you protect your child , but protecting the life of an unborn child that even the mother does not want does not help you at all.This logic also applies to racism .
Let say I was a Nazi and I went along with the exterminations .
After the genocide was done , what would there be to stop the law from suddenly saying that Germans with freckles like me need to be exterminated ?
Protecting the Jews would also indirectly protect myself .
People who are racist , once they 've accomplished their goal , will find something else wrong/different to be racist about .
It 's an unstable variable.In the end , everyone dies .
Live and let live.I know what I said was dry and had no emotion , but emotion should NEVER be used for important decisions .
Emotion is analogous to flipping a coin to see how you " feel " that this moment .
Emotion causes people to kill other people and people to love each other for no reason .
It 's a random variable .
Save emotions for minor decisions .
Logic is that thing you use when you 're emotionally angry at someone but you keep yourself from decking them in the face .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jews are Pigs.
Yep, fat in riches because they band together and encourage education.
Something people should be proud of.
  Christians are devils.
Yep, most violent religion in history.
Lots of people died in the name of "Chirst".
I'm Christian, gotta know your own history.
  Muslims are evil doers.
In the eyes of most Christians.
Islam is a very old respectful religion.
Again, history.
All of the violence of this religion is no where near Christianity, and by violence I mean small sects of extremists.Blacks are apes.
Again, go go white Christians.Women are property.
Seems to be a problem around the worldBabies are fetal tissue.
When they're developing"And at what time to you "choose" to stop calling it "fetal tissue" and start calling it a "baby" (human, person or otherwise)??
"Anything with "human" DNA is "human".
My skin is "human", a corpse is "human" and living corpse without a brain is "human" but also known as a vegetable.
A person does NOT have to be human.
All it has to do is be self-aware.
A very young child is not self-aware.You call it "Pro-Choice" because you can choose.
"Pro-Life" just means you have no choice and the child must be allowed to live.Life itself has no intrinsic value, if it does, show me the math.
The only value is your own life.
Logically, the best way to ensure your own life is to be in a society where people protect eachother's lives.
Your offspring carry your own DNA, which is effectively you only way to living past your own death.
If you do not wish to have an offspring, that is both your's and the partner's choice.
Once that offspring is born, you would want laws/rules in place to help protect your offspring since it helps the survival of your DNA.Logically, the only reason to make murder illegal is because helping someone else increases your chance of being helped.
Protecting other women's reproductive choices helps protect your own partner's reproductive choice and protecting the life of another person's child helps you protect your child, but protecting the life of an unborn child that even the mother does not want does not help you at all.This logic also applies to racism.
Let say I was a Nazi and I went along with the exterminations.
After the genocide was done, what would there be to stop the law from suddenly saying that Germans with freckles like me need to be exterminated?
Protecting the Jews would also indirectly protect myself.
People who are racist, once they've accomplished their goal, will find something else wrong/different to be racist about.
It's an unstable variable.In the end, everyone dies.
Live and let live.I know what I said was dry and had no emotion, but emotion should NEVER be used for important decisions.
Emotion is analogous to flipping a coin to see how you "feel" that this moment.
Emotion causes people to kill other people and people to love each other for no reason.
It's a random variable.
Save emotions for minor decisions.
Logic is that thing you use when you're emotionally angry at someone but you keep yourself from decking them in the face.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30946996</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect explanation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264757280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My understanding is that it's about 50/50 on newborn children in the us now.  None the less, barbaric maybe too strong a word, but mutilate may not be.</p><p>Main Entry: mutilate<br>Pronunciation: \my&#252;-t-lt\<br>Function: transitive verb<br>Inflected Form(s): mutilated; mutilating<br>Etymology: Latin mutilatus, past participle of mutilare, from mutilus truncated, maimed<br>Date: 1534</p><p>1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <br>2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of</p><p>#1 would be too easy to argue, but clearly not what you meant.</p><p>What does essential mean?</p><p>apparently it means so important as to be indispensable.  When it comes to the sex organs this is extremely subjective.  The comparison between female genital mutilation and circumcision isn't without merit.  If one views the purpose of sex organs to be reproduction fgm wouldn't be mutilation either.  Regardless, the foreskin of the penis does have a function.  It simultaneously protects the mucus membrane of the glans, and provides a gliding ability, with effects similar to additional lubrication.  The tissue is permanently destroyed and these functions are lost, resulting in a significant loss of sensation in the mucus membrane.  The idea that it's ok when a baby is young because they don't know what they are missing and can't remember the pain is somewhat silly, since a similar argument could be made for any operation, including rather severe things like gouging out one eye or amputating a couple fingers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My understanding is that it 's about 50/50 on newborn children in the us now .
None the less , barbaric maybe too strong a word , but mutilate may not be.Main Entry : mutilatePronunciation : \ my   -t-lt \ Function : transitive verbInflected Form ( s ) : mutilated ; mutilatingEtymology : Latin mutilatus , past participle of mutilare , from mutilus truncated , maimedDate : 15341 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect 2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of # 1 would be too easy to argue , but clearly not what you meant.What does essential mean ? apparently it means so important as to be indispensable .
When it comes to the sex organs this is extremely subjective .
The comparison between female genital mutilation and circumcision is n't without merit .
If one views the purpose of sex organs to be reproduction fgm would n't be mutilation either .
Regardless , the foreskin of the penis does have a function .
It simultaneously protects the mucus membrane of the glans , and provides a gliding ability , with effects similar to additional lubrication .
The tissue is permanently destroyed and these functions are lost , resulting in a significant loss of sensation in the mucus membrane .
The idea that it 's ok when a baby is young because they do n't know what they are missing and ca n't remember the pain is somewhat silly , since a similar argument could be made for any operation , including rather severe things like gouging out one eye or amputating a couple fingers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My understanding is that it's about 50/50 on newborn children in the us now.
None the less, barbaric maybe too strong a word, but mutilate may not be.Main Entry: mutilatePronunciation: \myü-t-lt\Function: transitive verbInflected Form(s): mutilated; mutilatingEtymology: Latin mutilatus, past participle of mutilare, from mutilus truncated, maimedDate: 15341 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect 2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of#1 would be too easy to argue, but clearly not what you meant.What does essential mean?apparently it means so important as to be indispensable.
When it comes to the sex organs this is extremely subjective.
The comparison between female genital mutilation and circumcision isn't without merit.
If one views the purpose of sex organs to be reproduction fgm wouldn't be mutilation either.
Regardless, the foreskin of the penis does have a function.
It simultaneously protects the mucus membrane of the glans, and provides a gliding ability, with effects similar to additional lubrication.
The tissue is permanently destroyed and these functions are lost, resulting in a significant loss of sensation in the mucus membrane.
The idea that it's ok when a baby is young because they don't know what they are missing and can't remember the pain is somewhat silly, since a similar argument could be made for any operation, including rather severe things like gouging out one eye or amputating a couple fingers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30945226</id>
	<title>Re:Fetal Stem Cells Need Not Apply</title>
	<author>telomerewhythere</author>
	<datestamp>1264694820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if you really believed that embryos had the same worth as a fetus or a child and a hospital was burning and you could only rescue all the babies in the maternity ward(we'll say 24 of them) or all of the potential babies in the cryogenic freezer then you logically would rescue the freezer as you would save far more lives. I for one would choose the actual babies and save the maternity ward.</p></div><p>
False Dichotomy
</p><p>
Or put another way, same proposition, only one choice, a baby or an old grandmother.  Which would you save?
</p><p>
Or your old grandma or an unknown baby?  which?  Or your baby and and unknown granny?  which?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if you really believed that embryos had the same worth as a fetus or a child and a hospital was burning and you could only rescue all the babies in the maternity ward ( we 'll say 24 of them ) or all of the potential babies in the cryogenic freezer then you logically would rescue the freezer as you would save far more lives .
I for one would choose the actual babies and save the maternity ward .
False Dichotomy Or put another way , same proposition , only one choice , a baby or an old grandmother .
Which would you save ?
Or your old grandma or an unknown baby ?
which ? Or your baby and and unknown granny ?
which ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you really believed that embryos had the same worth as a fetus or a child and a hospital was burning and you could only rescue all the babies in the maternity ward(we'll say 24 of them) or all of the potential babies in the cryogenic freezer then you logically would rescue the freezer as you would save far more lives.
I for one would choose the actual babies and save the maternity ward.
False Dichotomy

Or put another way, same proposition, only one choice, a baby or an old grandmother.
Which would you save?
Or your old grandma or an unknown baby?
which?  Or your baby and and unknown granny?
which?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30946944</id>
	<title>Re:Fetal Stem Cells Need Not Apply</title>
	<author>Artifakt</author>
	<datestamp>1264756500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That makes a certain amount of logical sense. The way you have phrased it, it also sounds like common sense, which may or may not actually matter - good rhetoric does not always make a good argument.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; But logical and scientific principles are not exactly the same things here.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; There's a number of reasons within the scientific method for thinking that stem cell research on fetal sources would give society valuable tools for fighting various diseases - but those reasons rise only to hypothetical status - that is they individually deserve to be called hypothetical, but don't have nearly enough supporting facts to deserve to be called theoretical. Part of the problem here is that the pro-fetal stem cell research side has talked about it as though there's strong, well established theoretical underpinnings for it producing really significant results of tremendous value to society, which we can't get from other sources such as umbilical cord tissues or adult stem cells. There have been too many claims that fetal research will eventually cure all cancers and other methods simply won't, or will, at the very least, take many times as long to get the same results.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; To make such claims justifiably, we would have to know a lot of things we just surmise, such as that certain hypothetical models of the effects of lengthened telomere accumulation were better than other models, all coming from established scientists with solid reputations.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; There's probably some real negative costs to society in being asked to decide whose science is better, ahead of normal processes of peer review and reproducing experiments or devising the new ones needed to settle which models have better predictive power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That makes a certain amount of logical sense .
The way you have phrased it , it also sounds like common sense , which may or may not actually matter - good rhetoric does not always make a good argument .
      But logical and scientific principles are not exactly the same things here .
      There 's a number of reasons within the scientific method for thinking that stem cell research on fetal sources would give society valuable tools for fighting various diseases - but those reasons rise only to hypothetical status - that is they individually deserve to be called hypothetical , but do n't have nearly enough supporting facts to deserve to be called theoretical .
Part of the problem here is that the pro-fetal stem cell research side has talked about it as though there 's strong , well established theoretical underpinnings for it producing really significant results of tremendous value to society , which we ca n't get from other sources such as umbilical cord tissues or adult stem cells .
There have been too many claims that fetal research will eventually cure all cancers and other methods simply wo n't , or will , at the very least , take many times as long to get the same results .
      To make such claims justifiably , we would have to know a lot of things we just surmise , such as that certain hypothetical models of the effects of lengthened telomere accumulation were better than other models , all coming from established scientists with solid reputations .
      There 's probably some real negative costs to society in being asked to decide whose science is better , ahead of normal processes of peer review and reproducing experiments or devising the new ones needed to settle which models have better predictive power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That makes a certain amount of logical sense.
The way you have phrased it, it also sounds like common sense, which may or may not actually matter - good rhetoric does not always make a good argument.
      But logical and scientific principles are not exactly the same things here.
      There's a number of reasons within the scientific method for thinking that stem cell research on fetal sources would give society valuable tools for fighting various diseases - but those reasons rise only to hypothetical status - that is they individually deserve to be called hypothetical, but don't have nearly enough supporting facts to deserve to be called theoretical.
Part of the problem here is that the pro-fetal stem cell research side has talked about it as though there's strong, well established theoretical underpinnings for it producing really significant results of tremendous value to society, which we can't get from other sources such as umbilical cord tissues or adult stem cells.
There have been too many claims that fetal research will eventually cure all cancers and other methods simply won't, or will, at the very least, take many times as long to get the same results.
      To make such claims justifiably, we would have to know a lot of things we just surmise, such as that certain hypothetical models of the effects of lengthened telomere accumulation were better than other models, all coming from established scientists with solid reputations.
      There's probably some real negative costs to society in being asked to decide whose science is better, ahead of normal processes of peer review and reproducing experiments or devising the new ones needed to settle which models have better predictive power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943946</id>
	<title>Cell Base + 3-D cell = Immortality!!!</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1264684740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just print yourself up a new body and replace the brain one hemisphere at a time and you too can live forever!!!!</p><p>No guarantees if you can preserve you "ghost"..... or not....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just print yourself up a new body and replace the brain one hemisphere at a time and you too can live forever ! ! !
! No guarantees if you can preserve you " ghost " ..... or not... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just print yourself up a new body and replace the brain one hemisphere at a time and you too can live forever!!!
!No guarantees if you can preserve you "ghost"..... or not....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30945152</id>
	<title>Re:Religious issue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264694160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sir or Madam, if you would like to step away from blustering and hyperbole, I will as well.</p><p>However, should you continue, I will be forced to insist that your declaration that fetuses are equivalent to full humans and thus stating that the labeling of them as fetuses is equivalent to the dehumanization of Jews and Blacks in WWII and the era of Slavery respectively is a ride on the crazy train.</p><p>I will then demand that if your insistence is that upon conception the embryo is a child, then I must state that in vitro fertilization is a senseless act which, having a success rate of only 50\%, involves too many deaths to be ethically sound.</p><p>Further, I must also extend the protection of "humanness" to the sperm and egg as well. Each sperm and egg has the potentiality to be a human. Every wasted sperm and egg, an egg especially!, is a waste of a human life. Following menstruation, women should be made to start breeding immediately in order to maximize the potential lives saved.</p><p>Is this the hyperbolic rantings of a madman? No, I say that it is not. I call this a mirror of your own beliefs. Perhaps taken to some unlikely degree, or perhaps not far enough.</p><p>Madness falls along either path. Where evil comes is not from men or women ranting about killing and destruction, but from absolute surety of purpose.  Question yourself and try to understand your opponent rather than attacking with vehemence, spitting acrid bile at your foes. The fallacy of middle ground may not apply in some situations, but understanding is never a bad thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sir or Madam , if you would like to step away from blustering and hyperbole , I will as well.However , should you continue , I will be forced to insist that your declaration that fetuses are equivalent to full humans and thus stating that the labeling of them as fetuses is equivalent to the dehumanization of Jews and Blacks in WWII and the era of Slavery respectively is a ride on the crazy train.I will then demand that if your insistence is that upon conception the embryo is a child , then I must state that in vitro fertilization is a senseless act which , having a success rate of only 50 \ % , involves too many deaths to be ethically sound.Further , I must also extend the protection of " humanness " to the sperm and egg as well .
Each sperm and egg has the potentiality to be a human .
Every wasted sperm and egg , an egg especially ! , is a waste of a human life .
Following menstruation , women should be made to start breeding immediately in order to maximize the potential lives saved.Is this the hyperbolic rantings of a madman ?
No , I say that it is not .
I call this a mirror of your own beliefs .
Perhaps taken to some unlikely degree , or perhaps not far enough.Madness falls along either path .
Where evil comes is not from men or women ranting about killing and destruction , but from absolute surety of purpose .
Question yourself and try to understand your opponent rather than attacking with vehemence , spitting acrid bile at your foes .
The fallacy of middle ground may not apply in some situations , but understanding is never a bad thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sir or Madam, if you would like to step away from blustering and hyperbole, I will as well.However, should you continue, I will be forced to insist that your declaration that fetuses are equivalent to full humans and thus stating that the labeling of them as fetuses is equivalent to the dehumanization of Jews and Blacks in WWII and the era of Slavery respectively is a ride on the crazy train.I will then demand that if your insistence is that upon conception the embryo is a child, then I must state that in vitro fertilization is a senseless act which, having a success rate of only 50\%, involves too many deaths to be ethically sound.Further, I must also extend the protection of "humanness" to the sperm and egg as well.
Each sperm and egg has the potentiality to be a human.
Every wasted sperm and egg, an egg especially!, is a waste of a human life.
Following menstruation, women should be made to start breeding immediately in order to maximize the potential lives saved.Is this the hyperbolic rantings of a madman?
No, I say that it is not.
I call this a mirror of your own beliefs.
Perhaps taken to some unlikely degree, or perhaps not far enough.Madness falls along either path.
Where evil comes is not from men or women ranting about killing and destruction, but from absolute surety of purpose.
Question yourself and try to understand your opponent rather than attacking with vehemence, spitting acrid bile at your foes.
The fallacy of middle ground may not apply in some situations, but understanding is never a bad thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943306</id>
	<title>Re:Religious issue</title>
	<author>The End Of Days</author>
	<datestamp>1264681140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not just be honest and label the sides pro-abortion and anti-abortion?  I get the idea that you have to present your ideas using the most favorable words possible in order to make it seem like you are naturally correct, but we're almost all adults here so let's not play intellectually dishonest games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not just be honest and label the sides pro-abortion and anti-abortion ?
I get the idea that you have to present your ideas using the most favorable words possible in order to make it seem like you are naturally correct , but we 're almost all adults here so let 's not play intellectually dishonest games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not just be honest and label the sides pro-abortion and anti-abortion?
I get the idea that you have to present your ideas using the most favorable words possible in order to make it seem like you are naturally correct, but we're almost all adults here so let's not play intellectually dishonest games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942610</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect explanation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264678200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So that's why they cut of the foreskin.</p></div><p>No one wants to be a dickhead.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So that 's why they cut of the foreskin.No one wants to be a dickhead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So that's why they cut of the foreskin.No one wants to be a dickhead.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30945068</id>
	<title>No need for stem-cell work-around</title>
	<author>Meshuggah24</author>
	<datestamp>1264693380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is no need for a work-around on Stem-cell research. Stem-cells are taken from already dead fetuses. There is no ethical issue. Why do people have so many damn problems with using dead tissue to save lives? Either way the technical feat achieved here is still remarkable. It is a work-around not from an ethical perspective but getting the same results from a more abundant cell.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no need for a work-around on Stem-cell research .
Stem-cells are taken from already dead fetuses .
There is no ethical issue .
Why do people have so many damn problems with using dead tissue to save lives ?
Either way the technical feat achieved here is still remarkable .
It is a work-around not from an ethical perspective but getting the same results from a more abundant cell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no need for a work-around on Stem-cell research.
Stem-cells are taken from already dead fetuses.
There is no ethical issue.
Why do people have so many damn problems with using dead tissue to save lives?
Either way the technical feat achieved here is still remarkable.
It is a work-around not from an ethical perspective but getting the same results from a more abundant cell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943526</id>
	<title>Re:Religious issue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264682340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your choice of words "Choice" and "Anti Choice" give insight into who's choice you give deference to. Last time I checked, the babies weren't given a choice.</p><p>And at what time to you "choose" to stop calling it "fetal tissue" and start calling it a "baby" (human, person or otherwise)??</p><p>How come you didn't call it "Pro-Life" and "Pro-death" ?? By simply choosing your words, you've clearly tried to frame the "choice" into something more palatable to your feelings.</p><p>Here's my challenge to you. Stop calling it "Anti-choice" and calling it by "Pro-Life" for a year. The side hasn't changed, only your words, see if your view on the subject changes. I'm not even suggesting you change it from "Pro-Choice" to "Pro-Death" or "Anti-life". Just stop calling it Anti-life and call it Pro-Life for a year.</p><p>You see, I bet you can't or won't be able to do it. And now you'll make excuses and attack me for even making such a suggestion.</p><p>After all, it is always easier to kill someone if you dehumanize them first. Jews are Pigs. Christians are devils. Muslims are evil doers. Blacks are apes. Women are property. Babies are fetal tissue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your choice of words " Choice " and " Anti Choice " give insight into who 's choice you give deference to .
Last time I checked , the babies were n't given a choice.And at what time to you " choose " to stop calling it " fetal tissue " and start calling it a " baby " ( human , person or otherwise ) ?
? How come you did n't call it " Pro-Life " and " Pro-death " ? ?
By simply choosing your words , you 've clearly tried to frame the " choice " into something more palatable to your feelings.Here 's my challenge to you .
Stop calling it " Anti-choice " and calling it by " Pro-Life " for a year .
The side has n't changed , only your words , see if your view on the subject changes .
I 'm not even suggesting you change it from " Pro-Choice " to " Pro-Death " or " Anti-life " .
Just stop calling it Anti-life and call it Pro-Life for a year.You see , I bet you ca n't or wo n't be able to do it .
And now you 'll make excuses and attack me for even making such a suggestion.After all , it is always easier to kill someone if you dehumanize them first .
Jews are Pigs .
Christians are devils .
Muslims are evil doers .
Blacks are apes .
Women are property .
Babies are fetal tissue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your choice of words "Choice" and "Anti Choice" give insight into who's choice you give deference to.
Last time I checked, the babies weren't given a choice.And at what time to you "choose" to stop calling it "fetal tissue" and start calling it a "baby" (human, person or otherwise)?
?How come you didn't call it "Pro-Life" and "Pro-death" ??
By simply choosing your words, you've clearly tried to frame the "choice" into something more palatable to your feelings.Here's my challenge to you.
Stop calling it "Anti-choice" and calling it by "Pro-Life" for a year.
The side hasn't changed, only your words, see if your view on the subject changes.
I'm not even suggesting you change it from "Pro-Choice" to "Pro-Death" or "Anti-life".
Just stop calling it Anti-life and call it Pro-Life for a year.You see, I bet you can't or won't be able to do it.
And now you'll make excuses and attack me for even making such a suggestion.After all, it is always easier to kill someone if you dehumanize them first.
Jews are Pigs.
Christians are devils.
Muslims are evil doers.
Blacks are apes.
Women are property.
Babies are fetal tissue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944374</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect explanation</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1264687860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I asked all the questions</p></div><p>And did you get the real answers?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>is it necessary</p></div><p>No, it is unnecessary</p><p><div class="quote"><p>is it recommended</p></div><p>Yes, it is recommended</p><p><div class="quote"><p>why</p></div><p>Because they can charge you for it, and then sell the foreskin.</p><p>You made the choice based on scientific data?<br>Which data?  The data showing almost zero correlation between circumcision and reduced health risks?</p><p>It's mutilation.  It's wrong.  It should be illegal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I asked all the questionsAnd did you get the real answers ? is it necessaryNo , it is unnecessaryis it recommendedYes , it is recommendedwhyBecause they can charge you for it , and then sell the foreskin.You made the choice based on scientific data ? Which data ?
The data showing almost zero correlation between circumcision and reduced health risks ? It 's mutilation .
It 's wrong .
It should be illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I asked all the questionsAnd did you get the real answers?is it necessaryNo, it is unnecessaryis it recommendedYes, it is recommendedwhyBecause they can charge you for it, and then sell the foreskin.You made the choice based on scientific data?Which data?
The data showing almost zero correlation between circumcision and reduced health risks?It's mutilation.
It's wrong.
It should be illegal.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944328</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect explanation</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1264687560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They cut it off so they can sell it to cosmetics manufacturers.</p><p>Yes ladies, your makeup has foreskin in it.</p><p>Rub those cocks all over your faces.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They cut it off so they can sell it to cosmetics manufacturers.Yes ladies , your makeup has foreskin in it.Rub those cocks all over your faces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They cut it off so they can sell it to cosmetics manufacturers.Yes ladies, your makeup has foreskin in it.Rub those cocks all over your faces.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942020</id>
	<title>Dont get your hopes up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264676040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure Conservatives will still find something to complain about.</p><p>They should just outright say, 'we're just afraid of science'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure Conservatives will still find something to complain about.They should just outright say , 'we 're just afraid of science'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure Conservatives will still find something to complain about.They should just outright say, 'we're just afraid of science'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943778</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect explanation</title>
	<author>Tenek</author>
	<datestamp>1264683840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm a mother. I've got two daughters. I was circ'ed as a girl, as were both of my daughters. I asked all the questions -- is it necessary, is it recommended, why or why not, etc. I decided to go ahead and I know exactly why I made that choice based on scientific data. If someone else is informed of the scientific data and chooses against circumcision, I fully respect that and have no problem with it. I can tell you that the child displayed little evidence of pain, as I was right there with the doc as it was done, and it heals quite quickly. And no, not "everybody else" does it. The number of uncircumcised females in the US is increasing, actually. You might find the numbers surprising if you have time to look it up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a mother .
I 've got two daughters .
I was circ'ed as a girl , as were both of my daughters .
I asked all the questions -- is it necessary , is it recommended , why or why not , etc .
I decided to go ahead and I know exactly why I made that choice based on scientific data .
If someone else is informed of the scientific data and chooses against circumcision , I fully respect that and have no problem with it .
I can tell you that the child displayed little evidence of pain , as I was right there with the doc as it was done , and it heals quite quickly .
And no , not " everybody else " does it .
The number of uncircumcised females in the US is increasing , actually .
You might find the numbers surprising if you have time to look it up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a mother.
I've got two daughters.
I was circ'ed as a girl, as were both of my daughters.
I asked all the questions -- is it necessary, is it recommended, why or why not, etc.
I decided to go ahead and I know exactly why I made that choice based on scientific data.
If someone else is informed of the scientific data and chooses against circumcision, I fully respect that and have no problem with it.
I can tell you that the child displayed little evidence of pain, as I was right there with the doc as it was done, and it heals quite quickly.
And no, not "everybody else" does it.
The number of uncircumcised females in the US is increasing, actually.
You might find the numbers surprising if you have time to look it up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30945058</id>
	<title>Wearable computer!</title>
	<author>Baldrson</author>
	<datestamp>1264693260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So the obvious next step is to create neurons in situ for a wearable biocomputer powered by your body!

Yes the world of the future is a bit like having bees live in your head but, there they are, and like the lady said "I said live it, or live with it!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the obvious next step is to create neurons in situ for a wearable biocomputer powered by your body !
Yes the world of the future is a bit like having bees live in your head but , there they are , and like the lady said " I said live it , or live with it !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the obvious next step is to create neurons in situ for a wearable biocomputer powered by your body!
Yes the world of the future is a bit like having bees live in your head but, there they are, and like the lady said "I said live it, or live with it!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30945020</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect explanation</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1264692840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The foreskin contains about 90\% of the nerve endings on the penis.</p></div><p>So I'd have more nerves to stimulate down there, and be even less than a one minute man if I hadn't been circumsized?  Thanks Mom and Dad!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The foreskin contains about 90 \ % of the nerve endings on the penis.So I 'd have more nerves to stimulate down there , and be even less than a one minute man if I had n't been circumsized ?
Thanks Mom and Dad !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The foreskin contains about 90\% of the nerve endings on the penis.So I'd have more nerves to stimulate down there, and be even less than a one minute man if I hadn't been circumsized?
Thanks Mom and Dad!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30945094</id>
	<title>Re:Fetal Stem Cells Need Not Apply</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1264693560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you never do research with fetal stem cells, you'll never know what they can do.</p></div><p>To add to that, you know what research started us down this whole avenue, right?  There are quite a few genes in the genome, but they only looked at 19</p><blockquote><div><p>Reasoning that multiple transcription factors would probably be required to reprogram fibroblasts to a neuronal fate, we cloned a total of 19 genes that are specifically expressed in neural tissues, have important roles in neural development, or have been implicated in epigenetic reprogramming</p></div></blockquote><p>How did they come up with that magic 19 instead of like 100,000 in the mouse genome?  Other studies that used fetal stem cells, or possibly IPsC cell studies, which themselves were discovered based on knowledge gleaned from studies in fetal stem cells.</p><p>If there had been no research on fetal stem cells we wouldn't have this, induced pluripotent stem cells, OR much knowledge about adult stem cells (which, not for nothing, haven't gotten us to the finish line yet, which is -why- research continues) and very little hope for anyone who has medical conditions like paralysis or parkinson's disease.</p><p>Instead we would have a little more incinerated biomedical waste from fertilization clinics.</p><p>Yeah, we really made the wrong decision there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you never do research with fetal stem cells , you 'll never know what they can do.To add to that , you know what research started us down this whole avenue , right ?
There are quite a few genes in the genome , but they only looked at 19Reasoning that multiple transcription factors would probably be required to reprogram fibroblasts to a neuronal fate , we cloned a total of 19 genes that are specifically expressed in neural tissues , have important roles in neural development , or have been implicated in epigenetic reprogrammingHow did they come up with that magic 19 instead of like 100,000 in the mouse genome ?
Other studies that used fetal stem cells , or possibly IPsC cell studies , which themselves were discovered based on knowledge gleaned from studies in fetal stem cells.If there had been no research on fetal stem cells we would n't have this , induced pluripotent stem cells , OR much knowledge about adult stem cells ( which , not for nothing , have n't gotten us to the finish line yet , which is -why- research continues ) and very little hope for anyone who has medical conditions like paralysis or parkinson 's disease.Instead we would have a little more incinerated biomedical waste from fertilization clinics.Yeah , we really made the wrong decision there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you never do research with fetal stem cells, you'll never know what they can do.To add to that, you know what research started us down this whole avenue, right?
There are quite a few genes in the genome, but they only looked at 19Reasoning that multiple transcription factors would probably be required to reprogram fibroblasts to a neuronal fate, we cloned a total of 19 genes that are specifically expressed in neural tissues, have important roles in neural development, or have been implicated in epigenetic reprogrammingHow did they come up with that magic 19 instead of like 100,000 in the mouse genome?
Other studies that used fetal stem cells, or possibly IPsC cell studies, which themselves were discovered based on knowledge gleaned from studies in fetal stem cells.If there had been no research on fetal stem cells we wouldn't have this, induced pluripotent stem cells, OR much knowledge about adult stem cells (which, not for nothing, haven't gotten us to the finish line yet, which is -why- research continues) and very little hope for anyone who has medical conditions like paralysis or parkinson's disease.Instead we would have a little more incinerated biomedical waste from fertilization clinics.Yeah, we really made the wrong decision there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944792</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect explanation</title>
	<author>NiteShaed</author>
	<datestamp>1264691040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gee, didn't take long for this to come out.  Do you really see the removal of a girl's clitoris and possibly labia as being analogous to removing the foreskin?  I was circumcised, and I can assure you I enjoy sex just fine.  Is it possible that it would be even better had I not been circumcised?  Maybe, but I have a hard time envisioning how it could be, cause it's pretty frackin' great as-is.  I doubt a woman who's had her clitoris removed would have a similar attitude towards sex.</p><p>Please don't trivialize the kind of suffering that those girls are put through.  If you find a culture where it's common to remove most of the penis, you may be on to something, but foreskin vs. clitoris and labia seems like no contest.</p><p>Further, I've never heard any "scientific data" supporting female "circumcision", but there is scientific data supporting it for males.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gee , did n't take long for this to come out .
Do you really see the removal of a girl 's clitoris and possibly labia as being analogous to removing the foreskin ?
I was circumcised , and I can assure you I enjoy sex just fine .
Is it possible that it would be even better had I not been circumcised ?
Maybe , but I have a hard time envisioning how it could be , cause it 's pretty frackin ' great as-is .
I doubt a woman who 's had her clitoris removed would have a similar attitude towards sex.Please do n't trivialize the kind of suffering that those girls are put through .
If you find a culture where it 's common to remove most of the penis , you may be on to something , but foreskin vs. clitoris and labia seems like no contest.Further , I 've never heard any " scientific data " supporting female " circumcision " , but there is scientific data supporting it for males .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gee, didn't take long for this to come out.
Do you really see the removal of a girl's clitoris and possibly labia as being analogous to removing the foreskin?
I was circumcised, and I can assure you I enjoy sex just fine.
Is it possible that it would be even better had I not been circumcised?
Maybe, but I have a hard time envisioning how it could be, cause it's pretty frackin' great as-is.
I doubt a woman who's had her clitoris removed would have a similar attitude towards sex.Please don't trivialize the kind of suffering that those girls are put through.
If you find a culture where it's common to remove most of the penis, you may be on to something, but foreskin vs. clitoris and labia seems like no contest.Further, I've never heard any "scientific data" supporting female "circumcision", but there is scientific data supporting it for males.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943804</id>
	<title>I don't know if I'd go as far as that quote</title>
	<author>NotSoHeavyD3</author>
	<datestamp>1264684020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I mean the "This suggests that there are no great rules -- you can reprogramme anything into anything else." quote. From what I remember from bio class tissues in mammals split into 3 different layers early on, the ectodermm the mesoderm and the endoderm. Oddly enough both skin and nerves come from the ectoderm. So what the scientist has demonstrated is he can turn on part of the ectoderm into another. (Not that he could say take endoderm from say the intestines and convert it into skin.)</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean the " This suggests that there are no great rules -- you can reprogramme anything into anything else .
" quote .
From what I remember from bio class tissues in mammals split into 3 different layers early on , the ectodermm the mesoderm and the endoderm .
Oddly enough both skin and nerves come from the ectoderm .
So what the scientist has demonstrated is he can turn on part of the ectoderm into another .
( Not that he could say take endoderm from say the intestines and convert it into skin .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean the "This suggests that there are no great rules -- you can reprogramme anything into anything else.
" quote.
From what I remember from bio class tissues in mammals split into 3 different layers early on, the ectodermm the mesoderm and the endoderm.
Oddly enough both skin and nerves come from the ectoderm.
So what the scientist has demonstrated is he can turn on part of the ectoderm into another.
(Not that he could say take endoderm from say the intestines and convert it into skin.
)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30945412</id>
	<title>Re:Religious issue</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1264697160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No it isn't, please inform yourself before speaking any further.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No it is n't , please inform yourself before speaking any further .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No it isn't, please inform yourself before speaking any further.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30946906</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect explanation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264756020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is barbaric and should be banned. You cannot treat boys with any less humane dignity than their female counterparts. If an adult man wants to be circumcised, that's his business.  If it must be done for medical reasons, that's different.</p><p>Your "scientific data," which you claim to know yet don't share, smells like bull.</p><p>Oh, I know some studies claim it'll help against HIV but, FFS, condoms do not require surgical mutilation to prevent HIV transmission.  I don't see you advocating breast removal for your daughter because she won't get cancer.  Get a grip.  Leave your sons INTACT as nature intended.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is barbaric and should be banned .
You can not treat boys with any less humane dignity than their female counterparts .
If an adult man wants to be circumcised , that 's his business .
If it must be done for medical reasons , that 's different.Your " scientific data , " which you claim to know yet do n't share , smells like bull.Oh , I know some studies claim it 'll help against HIV but , FFS , condoms do not require surgical mutilation to prevent HIV transmission .
I do n't see you advocating breast removal for your daughter because she wo n't get cancer .
Get a grip .
Leave your sons INTACT as nature intended .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is barbaric and should be banned.
You cannot treat boys with any less humane dignity than their female counterparts.
If an adult man wants to be circumcised, that's his business.
If it must be done for medical reasons, that's different.Your "scientific data," which you claim to know yet don't share, smells like bull.Oh, I know some studies claim it'll help against HIV but, FFS, condoms do not require surgical mutilation to prevent HIV transmission.
I don't see you advocating breast removal for your daughter because she won't get cancer.
Get a grip.
Leave your sons INTACT as nature intended.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944602</id>
	<title>Re:Religious issue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264689420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's an anti-stem cell?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's an anti-stem cell ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's an anti-stem cell?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30946738</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect explanation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264797480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, you are against ear, nose, tongue, and bellybutton piercings as well, then?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , you are against ear , nose , tongue , and bellybutton piercings as well , then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, you are against ear, nose, tongue, and bellybutton piercings as well, then?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943534</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect explanation</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1264682400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's been said that circumcision reduces the chances of STDs and cancer for both partners. Second, many women prefer cut men because it's "cleaner" when performing fellatio. Third, I've read stories that circumcised men also "last longer" in bed because the feeling isn't as intense for them compared to an uncircumcised man.</p><p>So girl, if it's better for you <i>and</i> him, why do you care if he's cut or not?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been said that circumcision reduces the chances of STDs and cancer for both partners .
Second , many women prefer cut men because it 's " cleaner " when performing fellatio .
Third , I 've read stories that circumcised men also " last longer " in bed because the feeling is n't as intense for them compared to an uncircumcised man.So girl , if it 's better for you and him , why do you care if he 's cut or not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been said that circumcision reduces the chances of STDs and cancer for both partners.
Second, many women prefer cut men because it's "cleaner" when performing fellatio.
Third, I've read stories that circumcised men also "last longer" in bed because the feeling isn't as intense for them compared to an uncircumcised man.So girl, if it's better for you and him, why do you care if he's cut or not?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944160</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect explanation</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1264686360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>can tell you that the child displayed little evidence of pain, as I was right there with the doc as it was done, and it heals quite quickly.</p></div><p>Liar. It hurts -- <a href="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-6584757516627632617&amp;hl=en" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">a lot</a> [google.com].  [Warning: Link is to a surgical demonstration video of the circumcision of a male baby.]</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And no, not "everybody else" does it. The number of uncircumsized males in the US is increasing, actually. You might find the numbers surprising if you have time to look it up.</p></div><p>I <a href="http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/" title="cirp.org" rel="nofollow">did</a> [cirp.org].</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Which, by your admission, is a tremendously small number of the male population. And if you become suicidally depressed because you're having disappointing intercourse, I'm guessing it's not just about the intercourse.</p></div><p>You wouldn't know... you've never had sex with your foreskin intact.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>can tell you that the child displayed little evidence of pain , as I was right there with the doc as it was done , and it heals quite quickly.Liar .
It hurts -- a lot [ google.com ] .
[ Warning : Link is to a surgical demonstration video of the circumcision of a male baby .
] And no , not " everybody else " does it .
The number of uncircumsized males in the US is increasing , actually .
You might find the numbers surprising if you have time to look it up.I did [ cirp.org ] .Which , by your admission , is a tremendously small number of the male population .
And if you become suicidally depressed because you 're having disappointing intercourse , I 'm guessing it 's not just about the intercourse.You would n't know... you 've never had sex with your foreskin intact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>can tell you that the child displayed little evidence of pain, as I was right there with the doc as it was done, and it heals quite quickly.Liar.
It hurts -- a lot [google.com].
[Warning: Link is to a surgical demonstration video of the circumcision of a male baby.
]And no, not "everybody else" does it.
The number of uncircumsized males in the US is increasing, actually.
You might find the numbers surprising if you have time to look it up.I did [cirp.org].Which, by your admission, is a tremendously small number of the male population.
And if you become suicidally depressed because you're having disappointing intercourse, I'm guessing it's not just about the intercourse.You wouldn't know... you've never had sex with your foreskin intact.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943150</id>
	<title>Article</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1264680300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For those of you trying to find the actual nature article, <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature08797.html" title="nature.com">here.</a> [nature.com]  I know we hate paywalls, but it should really be required for submission to slashdot that a link to the real paper, not preview, be included.</p><p>I am not a stem cell biologist, nor am I a neurobiologist, and I will need to read the paper more carefully when I&rsquo;m at home, but some of my thoughts:<br>There do seem to be some hurdles to using this in humans, but many are trivial in comparison, and the reason the authors didn&rsquo;t do them yet is because  they wanted to get this out there before anyone else did.  For one thing, they haven&rsquo;t shown this in humans yet, but it should work in human cells that&rsquo;s their stated next step.  These cells were grown using dead mouse &ldquo;feeder cells&rdquo; which is common in cell culture, but complicates things for human therapy.  You don&rsquo;t want even dead mouse cells or other people&rsquo;s dead cells in something that is going to go into your brain.  People are working on culturing without feeder cells,  I&rsquo;m not sure where they are on that.  The method of getting the 3 genes in is also an issue.  These guys used lentiviral transfection, which is not something you want for human cells.  Earlier work on IPSC got it done by incubating cells with transcription factor &ndash;protein- modified to penetrate cells.  That might be a good next step here, though it would probably decrease the efficiency.</p><p>A bigger issue to me is what they are transfecting.  They&rsquo;re putting in three transcription factors, Ascl1, Brn2 (also called Pou3f2) and Myt1l.  One of them, Ascl1,  is  found in many cancers (according to wiki anyway) and might be tumorgenic.  Especially if they find they can&rsquo;t get it to work without viral transfection, that could be a concern.  The other two though aren&rsquo;t tumorgenic apparently.   Brn2 (also called Pou3f2) and Myt1l are both associated with neuron differentiation, which is interesting.</p><p>They did overcome a big hurdle: these are not pluripotent, which probably means there&rsquo;s less chance of causing tumors, teratomas.  With induced pluripotent cells, that is a concern.  If you were to inject IpsC into your brain, you don&rsquo;t know what you&rsquo;re going to get.  You could get bone cells growing in there, cells which aren&rsquo;t supposed to be there that could potentially cause tumor formation.  This doesn&rsquo;t seem like that will be an issue here, they apparently get all neurons, neurons which appear not to continue dividing.  I do find it a little hard to believe though  that these only produce neurons and never glial cells, though I&rsquo;ll need to reread it a few more times.</p><p>This is also a interesting paradigm shift for developmental biologists: apparently you don&rsquo;t have to go back to square one to switch cell fates, it will take longer and be less efficient to do so.  IpsC take about a month to become pluripotent and then be grown back into neurons, and only about 1\% of the cells do that if I recall correctly.   These take a week.</p><p>For much of the study, they seem to be using 5 different factors, not the 3 minimal ones.  They state that Ascl1 alone was sufficient to make these cells start looking like neurons, but the other two were needed for them to look and behave like mature neurons.  Most of the figures were working with a combination of 5 factors.  With all 5, they showed a good mix of different types of neurons, but that had less efficient conversion than the minimal 3.  I&rsquo;m wondering if you&rsquo;d actually be able to get all the different types of mature neurons with just the 3.  I&rsquo;d guess it&rsquo;s not that they intentionally did it that way, but they wanted to hurry up and publish ASAP, so they skipped doing that characterization for now.</p><p>One problem facing all these therapies eventually, as I understand it, is that you want to get one specific type of neuron for therapy.  I have no idea what strategies there are to direct differentiation into specific types of neurons, but this seems like it would be the bigger hurdle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For those of you trying to find the actual nature article , here .
[ nature.com ] I know we hate paywalls , but it should really be required for submission to slashdot that a link to the real paper , not preview , be included.I am not a stem cell biologist , nor am I a neurobiologist , and I will need to read the paper more carefully when I    m at home , but some of my thoughts : There do seem to be some hurdles to using this in humans , but many are trivial in comparison , and the reason the authors didn    t do them yet is because they wanted to get this out there before anyone else did .
For one thing , they haven    t shown this in humans yet , but it should work in human cells that    s their stated next step .
These cells were grown using dead mouse    feeder cells    which is common in cell culture , but complicates things for human therapy .
You don    t want even dead mouse cells or other people    s dead cells in something that is going to go into your brain .
People are working on culturing without feeder cells , I    m not sure where they are on that .
The method of getting the 3 genes in is also an issue .
These guys used lentiviral transfection , which is not something you want for human cells .
Earlier work on IPSC got it done by incubating cells with transcription factor    protein- modified to penetrate cells .
That might be a good next step here , though it would probably decrease the efficiency.A bigger issue to me is what they are transfecting .
They    re putting in three transcription factors , Ascl1 , Brn2 ( also called Pou3f2 ) and Myt1l .
One of them , Ascl1 , is found in many cancers ( according to wiki anyway ) and might be tumorgenic .
Especially if they find they can    t get it to work without viral transfection , that could be a concern .
The other two though aren    t tumorgenic apparently .
Brn2 ( also called Pou3f2 ) and Myt1l are both associated with neuron differentiation , which is interesting.They did overcome a big hurdle : these are not pluripotent , which probably means there    s less chance of causing tumors , teratomas .
With induced pluripotent cells , that is a concern .
If you were to inject IpsC into your brain , you don    t know what you    re going to get .
You could get bone cells growing in there , cells which aren    t supposed to be there that could potentially cause tumor formation .
This doesn    t seem like that will be an issue here , they apparently get all neurons , neurons which appear not to continue dividing .
I do find it a little hard to believe though that these only produce neurons and never glial cells , though I    ll need to reread it a few more times.This is also a interesting paradigm shift for developmental biologists : apparently you don    t have to go back to square one to switch cell fates , it will take longer and be less efficient to do so .
IpsC take about a month to become pluripotent and then be grown back into neurons , and only about 1 \ % of the cells do that if I recall correctly .
These take a week.For much of the study , they seem to be using 5 different factors , not the 3 minimal ones .
They state that Ascl1 alone was sufficient to make these cells start looking like neurons , but the other two were needed for them to look and behave like mature neurons .
Most of the figures were working with a combination of 5 factors .
With all 5 , they showed a good mix of different types of neurons , but that had less efficient conversion than the minimal 3 .
I    m wondering if you    d actually be able to get all the different types of mature neurons with just the 3 .
I    d guess it    s not that they intentionally did it that way , but they wanted to hurry up and publish ASAP , so they skipped doing that characterization for now.One problem facing all these therapies eventually , as I understand it , is that you want to get one specific type of neuron for therapy .
I have no idea what strategies there are to direct differentiation into specific types of neurons , but this seems like it would be the bigger hurdle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those of you trying to find the actual nature article, here.
[nature.com]  I know we hate paywalls, but it should really be required for submission to slashdot that a link to the real paper, not preview, be included.I am not a stem cell biologist, nor am I a neurobiologist, and I will need to read the paper more carefully when I’m at home, but some of my thoughts:There do seem to be some hurdles to using this in humans, but many are trivial in comparison, and the reason the authors didn’t do them yet is because  they wanted to get this out there before anyone else did.
For one thing, they haven’t shown this in humans yet, but it should work in human cells that’s their stated next step.
These cells were grown using dead mouse “feeder cells” which is common in cell culture, but complicates things for human therapy.
You don’t want even dead mouse cells or other people’s dead cells in something that is going to go into your brain.
People are working on culturing without feeder cells,  I’m not sure where they are on that.
The method of getting the 3 genes in is also an issue.
These guys used lentiviral transfection, which is not something you want for human cells.
Earlier work on IPSC got it done by incubating cells with transcription factor –protein- modified to penetrate cells.
That might be a good next step here, though it would probably decrease the efficiency.A bigger issue to me is what they are transfecting.
They’re putting in three transcription factors, Ascl1, Brn2 (also called Pou3f2) and Myt1l.
One of them, Ascl1,  is  found in many cancers (according to wiki anyway) and might be tumorgenic.
Especially if they find they can’t get it to work without viral transfection, that could be a concern.
The other two though aren’t tumorgenic apparently.
Brn2 (also called Pou3f2) and Myt1l are both associated with neuron differentiation, which is interesting.They did overcome a big hurdle: these are not pluripotent, which probably means there’s less chance of causing tumors, teratomas.
With induced pluripotent cells, that is a concern.
If you were to inject IpsC into your brain, you don’t know what you’re going to get.
You could get bone cells growing in there, cells which aren’t supposed to be there that could potentially cause tumor formation.
This doesn’t seem like that will be an issue here, they apparently get all neurons, neurons which appear not to continue dividing.
I do find it a little hard to believe though  that these only produce neurons and never glial cells, though I’ll need to reread it a few more times.This is also a interesting paradigm shift for developmental biologists: apparently you don’t have to go back to square one to switch cell fates, it will take longer and be less efficient to do so.
IpsC take about a month to become pluripotent and then be grown back into neurons, and only about 1\% of the cells do that if I recall correctly.
These take a week.For much of the study, they seem to be using 5 different factors, not the 3 minimal ones.
They state that Ascl1 alone was sufficient to make these cells start looking like neurons, but the other two were needed for them to look and behave like mature neurons.
Most of the figures were working with a combination of 5 factors.
With all 5, they showed a good mix of different types of neurons, but that had less efficient conversion than the minimal 3.
I’m wondering if you’d actually be able to get all the different types of mature neurons with just the 3.
I’d guess it’s not that they intentionally did it that way, but they wanted to hurry up and publish ASAP, so they skipped doing that characterization for now.One problem facing all these therapies eventually, as I understand it, is that you want to get one specific type of neuron for therapy.
I have no idea what strategies there are to direct differentiation into specific types of neurons, but this seems like it would be the bigger hurdle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942490</id>
	<title>clearly scientists know nothing about marketing</title>
	<author>rev\_sanchez</author>
	<datestamp>1264677720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sick people don't have money because they spend it all on hospitals and medicine but horny old fat people have tons of money.  If Dr. Jack wants some serious grant money he'd better try to turn fat cells in boner cells.  He can use some of that cash to help him make Michael J. Fox less shaky and hell, why not give him a giant wang while he's at it.<br>
<br>
He'd be great in a commercial, "Hi, I'm Michael J. Fox.  You may have noticed that I'm a lot less shaky these days and I also have a giant wang now.  I owe it all to Dr. Jack."  Boom! Instant Nobel Prize.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sick people do n't have money because they spend it all on hospitals and medicine but horny old fat people have tons of money .
If Dr. Jack wants some serious grant money he 'd better try to turn fat cells in boner cells .
He can use some of that cash to help him make Michael J. Fox less shaky and hell , why not give him a giant wang while he 's at it .
He 'd be great in a commercial , " Hi , I 'm Michael J. Fox. You may have noticed that I 'm a lot less shaky these days and I also have a giant wang now .
I owe it all to Dr .
Jack. " Boom !
Instant Nobel Prize .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sick people don't have money because they spend it all on hospitals and medicine but horny old fat people have tons of money.
If Dr. Jack wants some serious grant money he'd better try to turn fat cells in boner cells.
He can use some of that cash to help him make Michael J. Fox less shaky and hell, why not give him a giant wang while he's at it.
He'd be great in a commercial, "Hi, I'm Michael J. Fox.  You may have noticed that I'm a lot less shaky these days and I also have a giant wang now.
I owe it all to Dr.
Jack."  Boom!
Instant Nobel Prize.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30941972</id>
	<title>sweet</title>
	<author>Dayofswords</author>
	<datestamp>1264675860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>but where will south park turn to for jokes? skin cells are not that funny</htmltext>
<tokenext>but where will south park turn to for jokes ?
skin cells are not that funny</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but where will south park turn to for jokes?
skin cells are not that funny</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30945570</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect explanation</title>
	<author>blai</author>
	<datestamp>1264699080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; Some become suicidally depressed.<br> <br>[citation needed]</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Some become suicidally depressed .
[ citation needed ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Some become suicidally depressed.
[citation needed]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942904</id>
	<title>Re:Fetal Stem Cells Need Not Apply</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264679220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For a while probably, at least until adult stem cells are actually proven to be as useful as embryonic stem cells and are able to be used interchangeably.  Yes there are some uses of adult stem cells that have produced therapeutic results but not every therapy or study can be done with adult cells.</p><p>Furthermore there is not much of an ethical dilemma for using embryonic stem cells as they are not children nor will they ever develop into children.  The problem is political and based in the morality of others which doesn't consider very deeply the question.  The problem is that people often equate potential life for life, and this is wrong and ultimately produces evil.</p><p>For instance if you really believed that embryos had the same worth as a fetus or a child and a hospital was burning and you could only rescue all the babies in the maternity ward(we'll say 24 of them) or all of the potential babies in the cryogenic freezer then you logically would rescue the freezer as you would save far more lives.  I for one would choose the actual babies and save the maternity ward.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For a while probably , at least until adult stem cells are actually proven to be as useful as embryonic stem cells and are able to be used interchangeably .
Yes there are some uses of adult stem cells that have produced therapeutic results but not every therapy or study can be done with adult cells.Furthermore there is not much of an ethical dilemma for using embryonic stem cells as they are not children nor will they ever develop into children .
The problem is political and based in the morality of others which does n't consider very deeply the question .
The problem is that people often equate potential life for life , and this is wrong and ultimately produces evil.For instance if you really believed that embryos had the same worth as a fetus or a child and a hospital was burning and you could only rescue all the babies in the maternity ward ( we 'll say 24 of them ) or all of the potential babies in the cryogenic freezer then you logically would rescue the freezer as you would save far more lives .
I for one would choose the actual babies and save the maternity ward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a while probably, at least until adult stem cells are actually proven to be as useful as embryonic stem cells and are able to be used interchangeably.
Yes there are some uses of adult stem cells that have produced therapeutic results but not every therapy or study can be done with adult cells.Furthermore there is not much of an ethical dilemma for using embryonic stem cells as they are not children nor will they ever develop into children.
The problem is political and based in the morality of others which doesn't consider very deeply the question.
The problem is that people often equate potential life for life, and this is wrong and ultimately produces evil.For instance if you really believed that embryos had the same worth as a fetus or a child and a hospital was burning and you could only rescue all the babies in the maternity ward(we'll say 24 of them) or all of the potential babies in the cryogenic freezer then you logically would rescue the freezer as you would save far more lives.
I for one would choose the actual babies and save the maternity ward.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30941986</id>
	<title>So, wait...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264675920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...The next time I tell one of my users to get off their ass because they're depriving their brain of oxygen, it'll be more than a snarky, shit-headed remark?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...The next time I tell one of my users to get off their ass because they 're depriving their brain of oxygen , it 'll be more than a snarky , shit-headed remark ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...The next time I tell one of my users to get off their ass because they're depriving their brain of oxygen, it'll be more than a snarky, shit-headed remark?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944208</id>
	<title>ma8e</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264686660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">and Arms and dick</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>and Arms and dick [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and Arms and dick [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30951520</id>
	<title>Cold Fusion?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264788720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, neurons are different than neutrons?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , neurons are different than neutrons ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, neurons are different than neutrons?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30945320</id>
	<title>Re:Religious issue</title>
	<author>telomerewhythere</author>
	<datestamp>1264696020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"anti-choice"?
</p><p>While I will never try to legislate your (or anyone's) actions, I think that the choice is made when a female allows a male entrance.  There are caveats, true.
</p><p>But, if a religious person/couple opposed to abortion fertilizes many eggs, shouldn't they do their best to bring *all* to term?  I think it would be hypocrisy to do otherwise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" anti-choice " ?
While I will never try to legislate your ( or anyone 's ) actions , I think that the choice is made when a female allows a male entrance .
There are caveats , true .
But , if a religious person/couple opposed to abortion fertilizes many eggs , should n't they do their best to bring * all * to term ?
I think it would be hypocrisy to do otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"anti-choice"?
While I will never try to legislate your (or anyone's) actions, I think that the choice is made when a female allows a male entrance.
There are caveats, true.
But, if a religious person/couple opposed to abortion fertilizes many eggs, shouldn't they do their best to bring *all* to term?
I think it would be hypocrisy to do otherwise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942076</id>
	<title>Fetal Stem Cells Need Not Apply</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264676160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How long will researchers insist on exploring fetal stem cells when adult stem cells have proven themselves to be so much more promising and have actually produces therapeutic results?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How long will researchers insist on exploring fetal stem cells when adult stem cells have proven themselves to be so much more promising and have actually produces therapeutic results ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long will researchers insist on exploring fetal stem cells when adult stem cells have proven themselves to be so much more promising and have actually produces therapeutic results?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944352</id>
	<title>Re:Religious issue</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1264687680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>The article also points out that this method could work around the ethical issues surrounding embryonic stem-cell research.</p></div></blockquote><p> This is more a religious issue rather than ethical - much like the pro-choice and anti-choice debate. Same people are anti-stem cell as those who are anti-choice.</p></div><p>Right, the same people who are in favor of killing unborn babies just because people don't want to have a baby, are in favor of killing unborn babies to harvest stem cells to use for medical research (even though all of the evidence points to those cells being of no medical use).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article also points out that this method could work around the ethical issues surrounding embryonic stem-cell research .
This is more a religious issue rather than ethical - much like the pro-choice and anti-choice debate .
Same people are anti-stem cell as those who are anti-choice.Right , the same people who are in favor of killing unborn babies just because people do n't want to have a baby , are in favor of killing unborn babies to harvest stem cells to use for medical research ( even though all of the evidence points to those cells being of no medical use ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article also points out that this method could work around the ethical issues surrounding embryonic stem-cell research.
This is more a religious issue rather than ethical - much like the pro-choice and anti-choice debate.
Same people are anti-stem cell as those who are anti-choice.Right, the same people who are in favor of killing unborn babies just because people don't want to have a baby, are in favor of killing unborn babies to harvest stem cells to use for medical research (even though all of the evidence points to those cells being of no medical use).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943966</id>
	<title>First Time Eh?</title>
	<author>Favonius Cornelius</author>
	<datestamp>1264684920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not the first time, but the first announced.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:}</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not the first time , but the first announced .
: }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not the first time, but the first announced.
:}</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944220</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect explanation</title>
	<author>0100010001010011</author>
	<datestamp>1264686720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Condoms reduce the chance of STDs more. Maybe be a responsible parent and teach your kids about condoms instead of sticking your fingers in your years.<br>2) It's the 21st century. I have a shower. I shower first as does my girlfriend before I. I've never heard one complaint about 'preference' or liking it 'the other way'<br>3) I've heard stories that they don't. It's circumstantial (no pun) evidence. I last plenty long for my girlfriend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Condoms reduce the chance of STDs more .
Maybe be a responsible parent and teach your kids about condoms instead of sticking your fingers in your years.2 ) It 's the 21st century .
I have a shower .
I shower first as does my girlfriend before I. I 've never heard one complaint about 'preference ' or liking it 'the other way'3 ) I 've heard stories that they do n't .
It 's circumstantial ( no pun ) evidence .
I last plenty long for my girlfriend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Condoms reduce the chance of STDs more.
Maybe be a responsible parent and teach your kids about condoms instead of sticking your fingers in your years.2) It's the 21st century.
I have a shower.
I shower first as does my girlfriend before I. I've never heard one complaint about 'preference' or liking it 'the other way'3) I've heard stories that they don't.
It's circumstantial (no pun) evidence.
I last plenty long for my girlfriend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942210</id>
	<title>Cheers!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264676580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Neurons have been created directly from skin cells for the first time.</p></div><p>This research counters all the arguments that people shouldn't do drugs because they kill brain cells. Now that we know how to create new brain cells, there is no excuse for not being stoned. And bike riders can now throw away there helmets. Science brings freedom back to democracy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Neurons have been created directly from skin cells for the first time.This research counters all the arguments that people should n't do drugs because they kill brain cells .
Now that we know how to create new brain cells , there is no excuse for not being stoned .
And bike riders can now throw away there helmets .
Science brings freedom back to democracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Neurons have been created directly from skin cells for the first time.This research counters all the arguments that people shouldn't do drugs because they kill brain cells.
Now that we know how to create new brain cells, there is no excuse for not being stoned.
And bike riders can now throw away there helmets.
Science brings freedom back to democracy.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943942</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect explanation</title>
	<author>garompeta</author>
	<datestamp>1264684740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>WTF, Seriously... following your logic you saying that the glans only has 10\% of the nerve endings on the penis?
So under your supposition, then if I ablate my glans and keep my foreskin I can still achieve orgasms?
Are you in elementary school? Or you cheated on the male anatomy exam? (lol)</htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF , Seriously... following your logic you saying that the glans only has 10 \ % of the nerve endings on the penis ?
So under your supposition , then if I ablate my glans and keep my foreskin I can still achieve orgasms ?
Are you in elementary school ?
Or you cheated on the male anatomy exam ?
( lol )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF, Seriously... following your logic you saying that the glans only has 10\% of the nerve endings on the penis?
So under your supposition, then if I ablate my glans and keep my foreskin I can still achieve orgasms?
Are you in elementary school?
Or you cheated on the male anatomy exam?
(lol)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942418</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect explanation</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1264677360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So that's why they cut of the foreskin.</p></div><p>Actually, yes. The foreskin contains about 90\% of the nerve endings on the penis. It's rather barbaric that this country is one of the few in the western world that routinely mutilates male anatomy -- many parents often not even knowing why it's done, only that everybody else does it. <a href="http://indra.com/~shredder/intact/anatomy/" title="indra.com" rel="nofollow">more info</a> [indra.com]. For the very few men that have been circumsized as an adult and had an opportunity to experience sex both ways -- they say that sex is very disappointing after. Some become suicidally depressed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So that 's why they cut of the foreskin.Actually , yes .
The foreskin contains about 90 \ % of the nerve endings on the penis .
It 's rather barbaric that this country is one of the few in the western world that routinely mutilates male anatomy -- many parents often not even knowing why it 's done , only that everybody else does it .
more info [ indra.com ] .
For the very few men that have been circumsized as an adult and had an opportunity to experience sex both ways -- they say that sex is very disappointing after .
Some become suicidally depressed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So that's why they cut of the foreskin.Actually, yes.
The foreskin contains about 90\% of the nerve endings on the penis.
It's rather barbaric that this country is one of the few in the western world that routinely mutilates male anatomy -- many parents often not even knowing why it's done, only that everybody else does it.
more info [indra.com].
For the very few men that have been circumsized as an adult and had an opportunity to experience sex both ways -- they say that sex is very disappointing after.
Some become suicidally depressed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30947770</id>
	<title>Possible bad uses of this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264768620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article: </p><p><div class="quote"><p>A further question is why, if cells retain an underlying versatility, they don&rsquo;t switch between cell types throughout our life</p></div><p>No answer to that. Freaky. Try to figure all nasty corners such technologies could bring the mankind to.</p><p>When will living people's skin cells start turning into neurons then?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : A further question is why , if cells retain an underlying versatility , they don    t switch between cell types throughout our lifeNo answer to that .
Freaky. Try to figure all nasty corners such technologies could bring the mankind to.When will living people 's skin cells start turning into neurons then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article: A further question is why, if cells retain an underlying versatility, they don’t switch between cell types throughout our lifeNo answer to that.
Freaky. Try to figure all nasty corners such technologies could bring the mankind to.When will living people's skin cells start turning into neurons then?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942888</id>
	<title>Religious issue</title>
	<author>cytoman</author>
	<datestamp>1264679100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The article also points out that this method could work around the ethical issues surrounding embryonic stem-cell research.</p></div></blockquote><p> This is more a religious issue rather than ethical - much like the pro-choice and anti-choice debate. Same people are anti-stem cell as those who are anti-choice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article also points out that this method could work around the ethical issues surrounding embryonic stem-cell research .
This is more a religious issue rather than ethical - much like the pro-choice and anti-choice debate .
Same people are anti-stem cell as those who are anti-choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article also points out that this method could work around the ethical issues surrounding embryonic stem-cell research.
This is more a religious issue rather than ethical - much like the pro-choice and anti-choice debate.
Same people are anti-stem cell as those who are anti-choice.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942354</id>
	<title>What to do with neuron cells</title>
	<author>HeckRuler</author>
	<datestamp>1264677180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, AWESOME!<br> <br>
Uh, do we have anyway to implant vat grown neurons into people in some meaningful way? Can we actually attach vat grown neurons to, uh, other neurons? <br>This is going to be one of those "wait 5 years" breakthroughs isn't it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , AWESOME !
Uh , do we have anyway to implant vat grown neurons into people in some meaningful way ?
Can we actually attach vat grown neurons to , uh , other neurons ?
This is going to be one of those " wait 5 years " breakthroughs is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, AWESOME!
Uh, do we have anyway to implant vat grown neurons into people in some meaningful way?
Can we actually attach vat grown neurons to, uh, other neurons?
This is going to be one of those "wait 5 years" breakthroughs isn't it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942408</id>
	<title>And people still bitch...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264677360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And people still bitch about the ban of embryonic stem cells. If we think of it, the ban actually spurs research to a much better direction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And people still bitch about the ban of embryonic stem cells .
If we think of it , the ban actually spurs research to a much better direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And people still bitch about the ban of embryonic stem cells.
If we think of it, the ban actually spurs research to a much better direction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943668</id>
	<title>Re:Embryonic stem cells shouldn't be replaced</title>
	<author>izomiac</author>
	<datestamp>1264683180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're conflating research with clinical practice.  In research the embryonic cells are vastly easier to work with, which hastens progress, reduces expense, and eliminates one source of errors.  Clinically, adult stem cells are more useful since a person could receive transplants that were immunologically indistinguishable from their own body, thus negating the need for immunosupressants and reducing the need for organ donors.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're conflating research with clinical practice .
In research the embryonic cells are vastly easier to work with , which hastens progress , reduces expense , and eliminates one source of errors .
Clinically , adult stem cells are more useful since a person could receive transplants that were immunologically indistinguishable from their own body , thus negating the need for immunosupressants and reducing the need for organ donors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're conflating research with clinical practice.
In research the embryonic cells are vastly easier to work with, which hastens progress, reduces expense, and eliminates one source of errors.
Clinically, adult stem cells are more useful since a person could receive transplants that were immunologically indistinguishable from their own body, thus negating the need for immunosupressants and reducing the need for organ donors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942644</id>
	<title>I've heard of wearing your heart on your sleeve...</title>
	<author>Falstaft</author>
	<datestamp>1264678260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>...but your brain?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...but your brain ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but your brain?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944172</id>
	<title>Re:Using skin cells as a base ingredient</title>
	<author>Arthur Grumbine</author>
	<datestamp>1264686480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...and reasonably far away from damaging sources (<b>liver</b>, for example).</p></div><p>Yeah, but it doesn't help much when we bring <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tequila" title="wikipedia.org">those damaging sources</a> [wikipedia.org] to them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and reasonably far away from damaging sources ( liver , for example ) .Yeah , but it does n't help much when we bring those damaging sources [ wikipedia.org ] to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and reasonably far away from damaging sources (liver, for example).Yeah, but it doesn't help much when we bring those damaging sources [wikipedia.org] to them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942108</id>
	<title>That's awesome!</title>
	<author>stakovahflow</author>
	<datestamp>1264676280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm happy for those with MS &amp; Macular Degeneration...<br>There is Hope!</p><p>(Just not the "Obama" kind of hope...)</p><p>I'm curious...</p><p>Is this possibly a cure for Alzheimers, as well?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm happy for those with MS &amp; Macular Degeneration...There is Hope !
( Just not the " Obama " kind of hope... ) I 'm curious...Is this possibly a cure for Alzheimers , as well ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm happy for those with MS &amp; Macular Degeneration...There is Hope!
(Just not the "Obama" kind of hope...)I'm curious...Is this possibly a cure for Alzheimers, as well?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30946964</id>
	<title>Re:So... how long...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264756740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try Finasteride*.  Male pattern baldness is caused by the fair follicules being sensitive to dihydrotestosterone (DHT).  Dihydrotestosterone is a metabolite of testosterone (T). Finasteride is a type II 5-alpha reductase inhibitor, which is the ensyme that converts T to DHT.</p><p>The least Finasteride will do for you is prevent further hair loss, and many people have regrowth.  I've been taking 2.5mg/day for 1.5 months and I can see regrowth.  As a rule of thumb, my physician says that hair lost within the past 5 years will usually regrow, there will be some regrowth of hair lost between 5 years and 10 years ago, and no regrowth of hair lost more than 10 years ago.</p><p>To find the peer reviewed research search google schollar for: finasteride androgenetic alopecia</p><p>You may also want to investigate minoxidil (too messy and too much hassle for me) and Nizoral.  There was some research done which showed Nizoral shampoo (2\% Ketoconazole) increased the number of anagen phase hair growth in mice.  Finasteride however is the only FDA licensed product for the treatment of androgenetic alopecia (Male pattern baldness) at this time.</p><p>*under the care of a competent physician</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try Finasteride * .
Male pattern baldness is caused by the fair follicules being sensitive to dihydrotestosterone ( DHT ) .
Dihydrotestosterone is a metabolite of testosterone ( T ) .
Finasteride is a type II 5-alpha reductase inhibitor , which is the ensyme that converts T to DHT.The least Finasteride will do for you is prevent further hair loss , and many people have regrowth .
I 've been taking 2.5mg/day for 1.5 months and I can see regrowth .
As a rule of thumb , my physician says that hair lost within the past 5 years will usually regrow , there will be some regrowth of hair lost between 5 years and 10 years ago , and no regrowth of hair lost more than 10 years ago.To find the peer reviewed research search google schollar for : finasteride androgenetic alopeciaYou may also want to investigate minoxidil ( too messy and too much hassle for me ) and Nizoral .
There was some research done which showed Nizoral shampoo ( 2 \ % Ketoconazole ) increased the number of anagen phase hair growth in mice .
Finasteride however is the only FDA licensed product for the treatment of androgenetic alopecia ( Male pattern baldness ) at this time .
* under the care of a competent physician</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try Finasteride*.
Male pattern baldness is caused by the fair follicules being sensitive to dihydrotestosterone (DHT).
Dihydrotestosterone is a metabolite of testosterone (T).
Finasteride is a type II 5-alpha reductase inhibitor, which is the ensyme that converts T to DHT.The least Finasteride will do for you is prevent further hair loss, and many people have regrowth.
I've been taking 2.5mg/day for 1.5 months and I can see regrowth.
As a rule of thumb, my physician says that hair lost within the past 5 years will usually regrow, there will be some regrowth of hair lost between 5 years and 10 years ago, and no regrowth of hair lost more than 10 years ago.To find the peer reviewed research search google schollar for: finasteride androgenetic alopeciaYou may also want to investigate minoxidil (too messy and too much hassle for me) and Nizoral.
There was some research done which showed Nizoral shampoo (2\% Ketoconazole) increased the number of anagen phase hair growth in mice.
Finasteride however is the only FDA licensed product for the treatment of androgenetic alopecia (Male pattern baldness) at this time.
*under the care of a competent physician</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944730</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect explanation</title>
	<author>studog-slashdot</author>
	<datestamp>1264690440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>I decided to go ahead, and I know exactly why I made that choice based on scientific data. If someone else is informed of the scientific data and chooses against circumcision, I fully respect that and have no problem with it.</i>
</p><p>I am struggling with this decision for my son; can you please provide the scientific data?
</p><p>Having viewed the circumcision video posted elsethread, right now I'm thinking no.
</p><p>...Stu</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I decided to go ahead , and I know exactly why I made that choice based on scientific data .
If someone else is informed of the scientific data and chooses against circumcision , I fully respect that and have no problem with it .
I am struggling with this decision for my son ; can you please provide the scientific data ?
Having viewed the circumcision video posted elsethread , right now I 'm thinking no .
...Stu</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I decided to go ahead, and I know exactly why I made that choice based on scientific data.
If someone else is informed of the scientific data and chooses against circumcision, I fully respect that and have no problem with it.
I am struggling with this decision for my son; can you please provide the scientific data?
Having viewed the circumcision video posted elsethread, right now I'm thinking no.
...Stu</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942724</id>
	<title>Cancer incidence</title>
	<author>dreamer.redeemer</author>
	<datestamp>1264678500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Emphasis on directly, we've been able to coax human adult somatic cells to become pluripotent stem cells since 2007. The "ethical issues" are pretty much old news, bringing it up almost feels like troll bait. TFA suggests that these cells are much less prone to cancer than iPSCs, which seems like a rather important bit the summary omitted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Emphasis on directly , we 've been able to coax human adult somatic cells to become pluripotent stem cells since 2007 .
The " ethical issues " are pretty much old news , bringing it up almost feels like troll bait .
TFA suggests that these cells are much less prone to cancer than iPSCs , which seems like a rather important bit the summary omitted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Emphasis on directly, we've been able to coax human adult somatic cells to become pluripotent stem cells since 2007.
The "ethical issues" are pretty much old news, bringing it up almost feels like troll bait.
TFA suggests that these cells are much less prone to cancer than iPSCs, which seems like a rather important bit the summary omitted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944866</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect explanation</title>
	<author>Kozz</author>
	<datestamp>1264691520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the penis and vagina were indistinguishable in form and function, you might have a point.  But reversing the genders of my statement has got to be the most absurd counterpoint in the whole thread.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the penis and vagina were indistinguishable in form and function , you might have a point .
But reversing the genders of my statement has got to be the most absurd counterpoint in the whole thread .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the penis and vagina were indistinguishable in form and function, you might have a point.
But reversing the genders of my statement has got to be the most absurd counterpoint in the whole thread.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942560</id>
	<title>The Thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264678020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great... its The Thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great... its The Thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great... its The Thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30945916</id>
	<title>Re:Cheers!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264702680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"there helmets"? You were trying to be funny or perhaps you need some new brain cells.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" there helmets " ?
You were trying to be funny or perhaps you need some new brain cells .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"there helmets"?
You were trying to be funny or perhaps you need some new brain cells.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943040</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect explanation</title>
	<author>Kozz</author>
	<datestamp>1264679760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Actually, yes. The foreskin contains about 90\% of the nerve endings on the penis. It's rather barbaric that this country is one of the few in the western world that routinely mutilates male anatomy -- many parents often not even knowing why it's done, only that everybody else does it. <a href="http://indra.com/~shredder/intact/anatomy/" title="indra.com" rel="nofollow">more info</a> [indra.com].</p></div><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin#Sexual" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Read, please.</a> [wikipedia.org]  "Barbaric" and "mutilate" are highly emotionally charged words.  I'm a father.  I've got two sons.  I was circ'ed as an infant, as were both of my boys.  I asked all the questions -- is it necessary, is it recommended, why or why not, etc.  I decided to go ahead, and I know exactly why I made that choice based on scientific data.  If someone else is informed of the scientific data and chooses against circumcision, I fully respect that and have no problem with it.  I can tell you that the child displayed little evidence of pain, as I was right there with the doc as it was done, and it heals quite quickly.  And no, not "everybody else" does it.  The number of uncircumsized males in the US is increasing, actually.  You might find the numbers surprising if you have time to look it up.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>For the very few men that have been circumsized as an adult and had an opportunity to experience sex both ways -- they say that sex is very disappointing after. Some become suicidally depressed.</p></div><p>Which, by your admission, is a tremendously small number of the male population.  And if you become suicidally depressed because you're having disappointing intercourse, I'm guessing it's not just about the intercourse.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , yes .
The foreskin contains about 90 \ % of the nerve endings on the penis .
It 's rather barbaric that this country is one of the few in the western world that routinely mutilates male anatomy -- many parents often not even knowing why it 's done , only that everybody else does it .
more info [ indra.com ] .
Read , please .
[ wikipedia.org ] " Barbaric " and " mutilate " are highly emotionally charged words .
I 'm a father .
I 've got two sons .
I was circ'ed as an infant , as were both of my boys .
I asked all the questions -- is it necessary , is it recommended , why or why not , etc .
I decided to go ahead , and I know exactly why I made that choice based on scientific data .
If someone else is informed of the scientific data and chooses against circumcision , I fully respect that and have no problem with it .
I can tell you that the child displayed little evidence of pain , as I was right there with the doc as it was done , and it heals quite quickly .
And no , not " everybody else " does it .
The number of uncircumsized males in the US is increasing , actually .
You might find the numbers surprising if you have time to look it up.For the very few men that have been circumsized as an adult and had an opportunity to experience sex both ways -- they say that sex is very disappointing after .
Some become suicidally depressed.Which , by your admission , is a tremendously small number of the male population .
And if you become suicidally depressed because you 're having disappointing intercourse , I 'm guessing it 's not just about the intercourse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, yes.
The foreskin contains about 90\% of the nerve endings on the penis.
It's rather barbaric that this country is one of the few in the western world that routinely mutilates male anatomy -- many parents often not even knowing why it's done, only that everybody else does it.
more info [indra.com].
Read, please.
[wikipedia.org]  "Barbaric" and "mutilate" are highly emotionally charged words.
I'm a father.
I've got two sons.
I was circ'ed as an infant, as were both of my boys.
I asked all the questions -- is it necessary, is it recommended, why or why not, etc.
I decided to go ahead, and I know exactly why I made that choice based on scientific data.
If someone else is informed of the scientific data and chooses against circumcision, I fully respect that and have no problem with it.
I can tell you that the child displayed little evidence of pain, as I was right there with the doc as it was done, and it heals quite quickly.
And no, not "everybody else" does it.
The number of uncircumsized males in the US is increasing, actually.
You might find the numbers surprising if you have time to look it up.For the very few men that have been circumsized as an adult and had an opportunity to experience sex both ways -- they say that sex is very disappointing after.
Some become suicidally depressed.Which, by your admission, is a tremendously small number of the male population.
And if you become suicidally depressed because you're having disappointing intercourse, I'm guessing it's not just about the intercourse.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30948638</id>
	<title>Re:Fetal Stem Cells Need Not Apply</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264776720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a straw man since we do not know how many of the embryos in cryogenic freeze will survive after implantation.</p><p>These are not the same question.</p><p>The question would be do you save 12 babies or 24 magical embryos in jars that are guaranteed to become adults in 9 months.</p><p>In any case, you are also incorrect in saying that equating potential life with life is evil.  What does this even mean?</p><p>They are not equating anything, they merely draw the imaginary line earlier than you.</p><p>To follow with a bad analogy, say you are on price is right, but you are the only contestant.  What do you bid?</p><p>If you answer anything but 1, you are being illogical.  You may not be close to the right price, but you will be sure to win the prize if you bid under the correct price.</p><p>Now imagine that instead of bidding on a car, you are bidding on a box that may contain a man. You are not sure if it does. If you overbid, the man dies. You spend up to nine months jail if you underbid. What do you bid?</p><p>It now becomes a risk assessment involving the following factors:</p><p>What is probability that there is a man in the box?<br>How much do you value the life of a stranger?<br>How much do you value your own freedom?</p><p>It is not an easy task to come up with a number, but you must admit that if the mans life is the most important thing, even if you are not sure that he is there, you will still bid one dollar, and risk spending a good deal of your time in jail.</p><p>If you do not believe the man is there, for whatever reason, you may bid a very high number indeed, because you don't want to risk jail time.</p><p>The real question is, what information are you basing you assumption on?  Why do you believe, or not believe, in the man in the box?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a straw man since we do not know how many of the embryos in cryogenic freeze will survive after implantation.These are not the same question.The question would be do you save 12 babies or 24 magical embryos in jars that are guaranteed to become adults in 9 months.In any case , you are also incorrect in saying that equating potential life with life is evil .
What does this even mean ? They are not equating anything , they merely draw the imaginary line earlier than you.To follow with a bad analogy , say you are on price is right , but you are the only contestant .
What do you bid ? If you answer anything but 1 , you are being illogical .
You may not be close to the right price , but you will be sure to win the prize if you bid under the correct price.Now imagine that instead of bidding on a car , you are bidding on a box that may contain a man .
You are not sure if it does .
If you overbid , the man dies .
You spend up to nine months jail if you underbid .
What do you bid ? It now becomes a risk assessment involving the following factors : What is probability that there is a man in the box ? How much do you value the life of a stranger ? How much do you value your own freedom ? It is not an easy task to come up with a number , but you must admit that if the mans life is the most important thing , even if you are not sure that he is there , you will still bid one dollar , and risk spending a good deal of your time in jail.If you do not believe the man is there , for whatever reason , you may bid a very high number indeed , because you do n't want to risk jail time.The real question is , what information are you basing you assumption on ?
Why do you believe , or not believe , in the man in the box ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a straw man since we do not know how many of the embryos in cryogenic freeze will survive after implantation.These are not the same question.The question would be do you save 12 babies or 24 magical embryos in jars that are guaranteed to become adults in 9 months.In any case, you are also incorrect in saying that equating potential life with life is evil.
What does this even mean?They are not equating anything, they merely draw the imaginary line earlier than you.To follow with a bad analogy, say you are on price is right, but you are the only contestant.
What do you bid?If you answer anything but 1, you are being illogical.
You may not be close to the right price, but you will be sure to win the prize if you bid under the correct price.Now imagine that instead of bidding on a car, you are bidding on a box that may contain a man.
You are not sure if it does.
If you overbid, the man dies.
You spend up to nine months jail if you underbid.
What do you bid?It now becomes a risk assessment involving the following factors:What is probability that there is a man in the box?How much do you value the life of a stranger?How much do you value your own freedom?It is not an easy task to come up with a number, but you must admit that if the mans life is the most important thing, even if you are not sure that he is there, you will still bid one dollar, and risk spending a good deal of your time in jail.If you do not believe the man is there, for whatever reason, you may bid a very high number indeed, because you don't want to risk jail time.The real question is, what information are you basing you assumption on?
Why do you believe, or not believe, in the man in the box?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943300</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect explanation</title>
	<author>Archangel Michael</author>
	<datestamp>1264681140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if that is the problem Tiger Woods has. He obviously was thinking with the wrong head.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if that is the problem Tiger Woods has .
He obviously was thinking with the wrong head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if that is the problem Tiger Woods has.
He obviously was thinking with the wrong head.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942416</id>
	<title>Re:That's awesome!</title>
	<author>some\_guy\_88</author>
	<datestamp>1264677360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this mean I can consume as much alcohol as I like now and let my doctor in the future grow back my brain cells?</p><p>I'll drink to that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean I can consume as much alcohol as I like now and let my doctor in the future grow back my brain cells ? I 'll drink to that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean I can consume as much alcohol as I like now and let my doctor in the future grow back my brain cells?I'll drink to that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942498</id>
	<title>Embryonic stem cells shouldn't be replaced</title>
	<author>LockeOnLogic</author>
	<datestamp>1264677780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are no "workarounds" in the need for embryonic stem cells. Each approach and method of stem cell generation have their respective strengths and weaknesses</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are no " workarounds " in the need for embryonic stem cells .
Each approach and method of stem cell generation have their respective strengths and weaknesses</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are no "workarounds" in the need for embryonic stem cells.
Each approach and method of stem cell generation have their respective strengths and weaknesses</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942376</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect explanation</title>
	<author>Ukab the Great</author>
	<datestamp>1264677240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If your brain was repaired with foreskin neurons, someone could call you smeghead and it wouldn't be an insult.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If your brain was repaired with foreskin neurons , someone could call you smeghead and it would n't be an insult .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your brain was repaired with foreskin neurons, someone could call you smeghead and it wouldn't be an insult.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30959722</id>
	<title>Re:That's awesome!</title>
	<author>rdnetto</author>
	<datestamp>1264790520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> The plaques themselves must be destroyed, not just throw billions of new neurons at the problem.</p></div><p>I don't know, most problems could (probably) be solved id billions of new neurons were thrown at them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The plaques themselves must be destroyed , not just throw billions of new neurons at the problem.I do n't know , most problems could ( probably ) be solved id billions of new neurons were thrown at them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The plaques themselves must be destroyed, not just throw billions of new neurons at the problem.I don't know, most problems could (probably) be solved id billions of new neurons were thrown at them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30945360</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect explanation</title>
	<author>Onymous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1264696500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Third, I've read stories that circumcised men also "last longer" in bed because the feeling isn't as intense for them compared to an uncircumcised man.</p></div><p>This is a selling point?</p><p>If you think making your penis less sensitive is best way to last longer in bed...</p><p>I'm afraid to imagine other problems you've got solutions for.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Third , I 've read stories that circumcised men also " last longer " in bed because the feeling is n't as intense for them compared to an uncircumcised man.This is a selling point ? If you think making your penis less sensitive is best way to last longer in bed...I 'm afraid to imagine other problems you 've got solutions for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Third, I've read stories that circumcised men also "last longer" in bed because the feeling isn't as intense for them compared to an uncircumcised man.This is a selling point?If you think making your penis less sensitive is best way to last longer in bed...I'm afraid to imagine other problems you've got solutions for.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30947020</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect explanation</title>
	<author>FreakyGreenLeaky</author>
	<datestamp>1264757460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>bwahahahahahahahahaha</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/comes up for breath...</p><p>bwahahahahahahahahaha</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>bwahahahahahahahahaha /comes up for breath...bwahahahahahahahahaha</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bwahahahahahahahahaha /comes up for breath...bwahahahahahahahahaha</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30945472</id>
	<title>Re:Fetal Stem Cells Need Not Apply</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1264697940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For instance if you really believed that embryos had the same worth as a fetus or a child and a hospital was burning and you could only rescue all the babies in the maternity ward(we'll say 24 of them) or all of the potential babies in the cryogenic freezer then you logically would rescue the freezer as you would save far more lives. I for one would choose the actual babies and save the maternity ward.</p></div><p>You would. Others wouldn't, and would see you as evil for making that choice.</p><p>"Ethics" != "my own morality". Learn and understand that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For instance if you really believed that embryos had the same worth as a fetus or a child and a hospital was burning and you could only rescue all the babies in the maternity ward ( we 'll say 24 of them ) or all of the potential babies in the cryogenic freezer then you logically would rescue the freezer as you would save far more lives .
I for one would choose the actual babies and save the maternity ward.You would .
Others would n't , and would see you as evil for making that choice .
" Ethics " ! = " my own morality " .
Learn and understand that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For instance if you really believed that embryos had the same worth as a fetus or a child and a hospital was burning and you could only rescue all the babies in the maternity ward(we'll say 24 of them) or all of the potential babies in the cryogenic freezer then you logically would rescue the freezer as you would save far more lives.
I for one would choose the actual babies and save the maternity ward.You would.
Others wouldn't, and would see you as evil for making that choice.
"Ethics" != "my own morality".
Learn and understand that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30946962</id>
	<title>Re:Religious issue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264756680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Using the code word "anti-choice" reveals your eye-rolling bias.</p><p>Further you say "anti-stem cell" which isn't true at all.  Pro-life advocates may be opposed specifically to embryonic stem cell research, particularly involving new lines, because it destroys a potentially matured human life.  You paint with such a broad brush, even in the follow up as to bely your bias.</p><p>You love abortion. Tens of millions per year. We get it. You have no ethical hang up about destroying human life whether for science, economic convenience or whim. We get it.  Sounds to me like you have some deep issues.  Maybe you made a gf get an abortion and have guilt issues?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Using the code word " anti-choice " reveals your eye-rolling bias.Further you say " anti-stem cell " which is n't true at all .
Pro-life advocates may be opposed specifically to embryonic stem cell research , particularly involving new lines , because it destroys a potentially matured human life .
You paint with such a broad brush , even in the follow up as to bely your bias.You love abortion .
Tens of millions per year .
We get it .
You have no ethical hang up about destroying human life whether for science , economic convenience or whim .
We get it .
Sounds to me like you have some deep issues .
Maybe you made a gf get an abortion and have guilt issues ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using the code word "anti-choice" reveals your eye-rolling bias.Further you say "anti-stem cell" which isn't true at all.
Pro-life advocates may be opposed specifically to embryonic stem cell research, particularly involving new lines, because it destroys a potentially matured human life.
You paint with such a broad brush, even in the follow up as to bely your bias.You love abortion.
Tens of millions per year.
We get it.
You have no ethical hang up about destroying human life whether for science, economic convenience or whim.
We get it.
Sounds to me like you have some deep issues.
Maybe you made a gf get an abortion and have guilt issues?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944434</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect explanation</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1264688280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reduced chance of STDs, the improved hygiene, etc is not due to the circumcision.</p><p>It's due to the fact that people (parents) who are more concerned about health will be more likely to circumcise their child (based on the bullshit claims that it's healthier).</p><p>Health-conscious people circumcise their kids, who are also health-conscious people.</p><p>Circumcision does NOT provide any mechanism to improve hygiene.  All it provides is a risk for infection or terrible mishap.</p><p>Anyone unhygienic enough to get nasty funk trapped under their foreskin is going to by unhygienic enough to get nasty gunk on the rest of their cock.</p><p>Sex is NOT better for the male, it's worse.  It lasts longer because there are millions of nerves lost, and the constantly-exposed head becomes calloused.</p><p>Cleaner when performing fellatio?  Seems to me foreskin is pulled back, behind the head.  A penis with the foreskin pulled back looks exactly like a circumcised penis, with the notable exception that the head isn't a thick, rough callous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reduced chance of STDs , the improved hygiene , etc is not due to the circumcision.It 's due to the fact that people ( parents ) who are more concerned about health will be more likely to circumcise their child ( based on the bullshit claims that it 's healthier ) .Health-conscious people circumcise their kids , who are also health-conscious people.Circumcision does NOT provide any mechanism to improve hygiene .
All it provides is a risk for infection or terrible mishap.Anyone unhygienic enough to get nasty funk trapped under their foreskin is going to by unhygienic enough to get nasty gunk on the rest of their cock.Sex is NOT better for the male , it 's worse .
It lasts longer because there are millions of nerves lost , and the constantly-exposed head becomes calloused.Cleaner when performing fellatio ?
Seems to me foreskin is pulled back , behind the head .
A penis with the foreskin pulled back looks exactly like a circumcised penis , with the notable exception that the head is n't a thick , rough callous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reduced chance of STDs, the improved hygiene, etc is not due to the circumcision.It's due to the fact that people (parents) who are more concerned about health will be more likely to circumcise their child (based on the bullshit claims that it's healthier).Health-conscious people circumcise their kids, who are also health-conscious people.Circumcision does NOT provide any mechanism to improve hygiene.
All it provides is a risk for infection or terrible mishap.Anyone unhygienic enough to get nasty funk trapped under their foreskin is going to by unhygienic enough to get nasty gunk on the rest of their cock.Sex is NOT better for the male, it's worse.
It lasts longer because there are millions of nerves lost, and the constantly-exposed head becomes calloused.Cleaner when performing fellatio?
Seems to me foreskin is pulled back, behind the head.
A penis with the foreskin pulled back looks exactly like a circumcised penis, with the notable exception that the head isn't a thick, rough callous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30947932</id>
	<title>Re:That's awesome!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264770900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I&rsquo;m happy for those with MS &amp; Macular Degeneration...</p></div><p>Yes. MS is a really ugly disease. You get this colorful &ldquo;buttons&rdquo; all over the surface, and it gets harder and harder to to basic stuff. You basically become a dumbed-down zombie after a time, unable to achieve anything. Locked down in your cage of point and click on Playmobil interfaces giving you macular degeneration.<br>Thank god for Linux.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I    m happy for those with MS &amp; Macular Degeneration...Yes .
MS is a really ugly disease .
You get this colorful    buttons    all over the surface , and it gets harder and harder to to basic stuff .
You basically become a dumbed-down zombie after a time , unable to achieve anything .
Locked down in your cage of point and click on Playmobil interfaces giving you macular degeneration.Thank god for Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I’m happy for those with MS &amp; Macular Degeneration...Yes.
MS is a really ugly disease.
You get this colorful “buttons” all over the surface, and it gets harder and harder to to basic stuff.
You basically become a dumbed-down zombie after a time, unable to achieve anything.
Locked down in your cage of point and click on Playmobil interfaces giving you macular degeneration.Thank god for Linux.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942638</id>
	<title>Re:Fetal Stem Cells Need Not Apply</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264678260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you never do research with fetal stem cells, you'll never know what they can do.  When the alternative to fetal stem cell research is throwing the fetal stem cells in an incinerator, don't we have a moral obligation to get the best use out of them that we can?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you never do research with fetal stem cells , you 'll never know what they can do .
When the alternative to fetal stem cell research is throwing the fetal stem cells in an incinerator , do n't we have a moral obligation to get the best use out of them that we can ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you never do research with fetal stem cells, you'll never know what they can do.
When the alternative to fetal stem cell research is throwing the fetal stem cells in an incinerator, don't we have a moral obligation to get the best use out of them that we can?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942384</id>
	<title>So... how long...</title>
	<author>mafian911</author>
	<datestamp>1264677300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>...until this technology can be used to regrow luscious locks of hair for balding people? Just asking... for a friend... .</htmltext>
<tokenext>...until this technology can be used to regrow luscious locks of hair for balding people ?
Just asking... for a friend... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...until this technology can be used to regrow luscious locks of hair for balding people?
Just asking... for a friend... .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943420</id>
	<title>Re:Religious issue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264681740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Coincidentally, there are biblical reasons that abortion is no big deal.  More compelling than the ones against.  Religious reasons are all pretty weak.  If I'm going to support a law in either direction I want more.</p><p>Scientifically, I have no trouble with abortion either.  It's just cells.</p><p>Ethically, I have trouble with it.  The "just cells" argument applies to you and me as well, so there needs to be a better definition of what constitutes a human life.  Religion based ones are weak, so let's not even bother with those.  Unfortunately, every definition I hear is arbitrary.  In mankind's history, we've used arbitrary definitions of what is human to do some pretty terrible things.  "Slaves, well, they aren't human."  "Jews, well, they aren't human."  "Women, well, they aren't as fully human as men."  And so on.  I'd rather have a broad definition of what is human and be wrong than have a narrow one and be wrong.</p><p>So if the definition is hazy, how about rights?  Rights of the woman vs rights of the fetus.</p><p>Right of choice: Unless it was forced sex, the choice was made to risk pregnancy.  You smoke, you might get lung cancer.  But the difference is that lung cancer most certainly has no rights.  Choice after sex is a pretty lame reason.</p><p>Economic/social/population reasons: weird as it seems, I'd buy those reasons.  But feel kind of dirty doing it.  Bringing a child into a world only to suffer seems wrong.  But it would have to be a pretty shitty existence.</p><p>Every child a wanted child: sorry, but the worth of a person should not be predicated on them being wanted.</p><p>Privacy: A good argument only if we can assert that only one person is involved.  But we're stuck with not being sure.</p><p>And so on.  Overall, I'd say that both sides of the abortion debate use extremely weak reasons to justify what is essentially a gut feeling.</p><p>Why the rant?  Because it <b>can</b> be a purely ethical debate about stem cells same as abortion can be a purely ethical debate.  And just as murky.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Coincidentally , there are biblical reasons that abortion is no big deal .
More compelling than the ones against .
Religious reasons are all pretty weak .
If I 'm going to support a law in either direction I want more.Scientifically , I have no trouble with abortion either .
It 's just cells.Ethically , I have trouble with it .
The " just cells " argument applies to you and me as well , so there needs to be a better definition of what constitutes a human life .
Religion based ones are weak , so let 's not even bother with those .
Unfortunately , every definition I hear is arbitrary .
In mankind 's history , we 've used arbitrary definitions of what is human to do some pretty terrible things .
" Slaves , well , they are n't human .
" " Jews , well , they are n't human .
" " Women , well , they are n't as fully human as men .
" And so on .
I 'd rather have a broad definition of what is human and be wrong than have a narrow one and be wrong.So if the definition is hazy , how about rights ?
Rights of the woman vs rights of the fetus.Right of choice : Unless it was forced sex , the choice was made to risk pregnancy .
You smoke , you might get lung cancer .
But the difference is that lung cancer most certainly has no rights .
Choice after sex is a pretty lame reason.Economic/social/population reasons : weird as it seems , I 'd buy those reasons .
But feel kind of dirty doing it .
Bringing a child into a world only to suffer seems wrong .
But it would have to be a pretty shitty existence.Every child a wanted child : sorry , but the worth of a person should not be predicated on them being wanted.Privacy : A good argument only if we can assert that only one person is involved .
But we 're stuck with not being sure.And so on .
Overall , I 'd say that both sides of the abortion debate use extremely weak reasons to justify what is essentially a gut feeling.Why the rant ?
Because it can be a purely ethical debate about stem cells same as abortion can be a purely ethical debate .
And just as murky .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Coincidentally, there are biblical reasons that abortion is no big deal.
More compelling than the ones against.
Religious reasons are all pretty weak.
If I'm going to support a law in either direction I want more.Scientifically, I have no trouble with abortion either.
It's just cells.Ethically, I have trouble with it.
The "just cells" argument applies to you and me as well, so there needs to be a better definition of what constitutes a human life.
Religion based ones are weak, so let's not even bother with those.
Unfortunately, every definition I hear is arbitrary.
In mankind's history, we've used arbitrary definitions of what is human to do some pretty terrible things.
"Slaves, well, they aren't human.
"  "Jews, well, they aren't human.
"  "Women, well, they aren't as fully human as men.
"  And so on.
I'd rather have a broad definition of what is human and be wrong than have a narrow one and be wrong.So if the definition is hazy, how about rights?
Rights of the woman vs rights of the fetus.Right of choice: Unless it was forced sex, the choice was made to risk pregnancy.
You smoke, you might get lung cancer.
But the difference is that lung cancer most certainly has no rights.
Choice after sex is a pretty lame reason.Economic/social/population reasons: weird as it seems, I'd buy those reasons.
But feel kind of dirty doing it.
Bringing a child into a world only to suffer seems wrong.
But it would have to be a pretty shitty existence.Every child a wanted child: sorry, but the worth of a person should not be predicated on them being wanted.Privacy: A good argument only if we can assert that only one person is involved.
But we're stuck with not being sure.And so on.
Overall, I'd say that both sides of the abortion debate use extremely weak reasons to justify what is essentially a gut feeling.Why the rant?
Because it can be a purely ethical debate about stem cells same as abortion can be a purely ethical debate.
And just as murky.
   </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942010</id>
	<title>Perfect explanation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264675980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So that's why they cut of the foreskin.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So that 's why they cut of the foreskin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So that's why they cut of the foreskin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30948898</id>
	<title>Re:Religious issue</title>
	<author>Gorphrim</author>
	<datestamp>1264778160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Last time I checked, the babies weren't given a choice.</p></div><p>You're right, we should let babies make more decisions about their lives...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Last time I checked , the babies were n't given a choice.You 're right , we should let babies make more decisions about their lives.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last time I checked, the babies weren't given a choice.You're right, we should let babies make more decisions about their lives...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942640</id>
	<title>Re:sweet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264678260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>sluffing -&gt; sloughing</htmltext>
<tokenext>sluffing - &gt; sloughing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sluffing -&gt; sloughing</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942946</id>
	<title>Re:Embryonic stem cells shouldn't be replaced</title>
	<author>jgtg32a</author>
	<datestamp>1264679340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry there was a "need" for embryonic stem cells?  Was there a break through that I missed? I was under the impression that embryonic cells would be great because they can be turned into anything, and are ready to go right after they are harvested, but they have a very high rejection rate and have been known to introduce other problems. <br>
&nbsp; <br>That's why all techniques using stem cells use adult stem cells.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry there was a " need " for embryonic stem cells ?
Was there a break through that I missed ?
I was under the impression that embryonic cells would be great because they can be turned into anything , and are ready to go right after they are harvested , but they have a very high rejection rate and have been known to introduce other problems .
  That 's why all techniques using stem cells use adult stem cells .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry there was a "need" for embryonic stem cells?
Was there a break through that I missed?
I was under the impression that embryonic cells would be great because they can be turned into anything, and are ready to go right after they are harvested, but they have a very high rejection rate and have been known to introduce other problems.
  That's why all techniques using stem cells use adult stem cells.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944308</id>
	<title>Re:Embryonic stem cells shouldn't be replaced</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1264687440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There are no "workarounds" in the need for embryonic stem cells. Each approach and method of stem cell generation have their respective strengths and weaknesses</p></div><p>What "need" for embryonic stem cells? Can you tell me of one successful therapeutic use for embryonic stem cells?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are no " workarounds " in the need for embryonic stem cells .
Each approach and method of stem cell generation have their respective strengths and weaknessesWhat " need " for embryonic stem cells ?
Can you tell me of one successful therapeutic use for embryonic stem cells ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are no "workarounds" in the need for embryonic stem cells.
Each approach and method of stem cell generation have their respective strengths and weaknessesWhat "need" for embryonic stem cells?
Can you tell me of one successful therapeutic use for embryonic stem cells?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942828</id>
	<title>Re:Fetal Stem Cells Need Not Apply</title>
	<author>JoshuaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1264678860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All of the work with adult cells relies on our deep understanding from the much easier case of fetal cells.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All of the work with adult cells relies on our deep understanding from the much easier case of fetal cells .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of the work with adult cells relies on our deep understanding from the much easier case of fetal cells.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943280</id>
	<title>Using skin cells as a base ingredient</title>
	<author>gringer</author>
	<datestamp>1264681080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not particularly keen on the idea of using skin cells for this. Sure, they're readily accessible (not very invasive), but skin cells are <em>really</em> close to the surface of the body (or at the surface of the body), and therefore really close to environmental influences. They die frequently (a fair amount of the dust in your house is dead skin cells), and are exposed to many things that can cause genetic mutations, sunlight probably being the biggest thing. If I had to regenerate neurons from other body cells, I'd rather something that was a bit more internal and reasonably far away from damaging sources (liver, for example).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not particularly keen on the idea of using skin cells for this .
Sure , they 're readily accessible ( not very invasive ) , but skin cells are really close to the surface of the body ( or at the surface of the body ) , and therefore really close to environmental influences .
They die frequently ( a fair amount of the dust in your house is dead skin cells ) , and are exposed to many things that can cause genetic mutations , sunlight probably being the biggest thing .
If I had to regenerate neurons from other body cells , I 'd rather something that was a bit more internal and reasonably far away from damaging sources ( liver , for example ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not particularly keen on the idea of using skin cells for this.
Sure, they're readily accessible (not very invasive), but skin cells are really close to the surface of the body (or at the surface of the body), and therefore really close to environmental influences.
They die frequently (a fair amount of the dust in your house is dead skin cells), and are exposed to many things that can cause genetic mutations, sunlight probably being the biggest thing.
If I had to regenerate neurons from other body cells, I'd rather something that was a bit more internal and reasonably far away from damaging sources (liver, for example).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943640</id>
	<title>Re:Religious issue</title>
	<author>Eryq</author>
	<datestamp>1264683120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Pro-choice" and "anti-choice" are perfectly neutral and descriptive<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the issue is whether or not you believe a woman should have the right to choose to abort her pregnancy.  Personally, I'm pro-choice.</p><p>And we all know you're not, or you wouldn't have accused the OP of being "intellectually dishonest".  So don't pretend.</p><p>The dishonest labels would have been "pro/anti-life" or "pro/anti-abortion".  Pro-choicers are not "anti-life" (I just value the life of the mother over the life of a cluster of cells), nor are we "pro-abortion" (I want abortions to be as rare as possible -- but I want them to be legal).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Pro-choice " and " anti-choice " are perfectly neutral and descriptive ... the issue is whether or not you believe a woman should have the right to choose to abort her pregnancy .
Personally , I 'm pro-choice.And we all know you 're not , or you would n't have accused the OP of being " intellectually dishonest " .
So do n't pretend.The dishonest labels would have been " pro/anti-life " or " pro/anti-abortion " .
Pro-choicers are not " anti-life " ( I just value the life of the mother over the life of a cluster of cells ) , nor are we " pro-abortion " ( I want abortions to be as rare as possible -- but I want them to be legal ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Pro-choice" and "anti-choice" are perfectly neutral and descriptive ... the issue is whether or not you believe a woman should have the right to choose to abort her pregnancy.
Personally, I'm pro-choice.And we all know you're not, or you wouldn't have accused the OP of being "intellectually dishonest".
So don't pretend.The dishonest labels would have been "pro/anti-life" or "pro/anti-abortion".
Pro-choicers are not "anti-life" (I just value the life of the mother over the life of a cluster of cells), nor are we "pro-abortion" (I want abortions to be as rare as possible -- but I want them to be legal).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30947360</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect explanation</title>
	<author>BlueParrot</author>
	<datestamp>1264762020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I asked all the questions -- is it necessary, is it recommended, why or why not, etc.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Well here is one you did not consider. About one in every few thousand babies born is transsexual. That is, the neurological gender of their brain does not match the apparent sex of their body. Typically these people will desire surgical "correction" of their genitals latter in life, and availability of skin is one of the key variables that impact the outcome. Now I realize this is a rare occurrence, but it does happen, and since I'm transsexual myself and thus know just how shit it can be, I can only hope that neither of your sons will turn out to be transsexual. Then again, with sufficiently many babies being circ'd it follows that it will happen to some.</p><p>I also imagine it may have an impact on other types of re-constructive surgery, should your sons ever have the misfortune of being hurt in an accident or something.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I asked all the questions -- is it necessary , is it recommended , why or why not , etc .
Well here is one you did not consider .
About one in every few thousand babies born is transsexual .
That is , the neurological gender of their brain does not match the apparent sex of their body .
Typically these people will desire surgical " correction " of their genitals latter in life , and availability of skin is one of the key variables that impact the outcome .
Now I realize this is a rare occurrence , but it does happen , and since I 'm transsexual myself and thus know just how shit it can be , I can only hope that neither of your sons will turn out to be transsexual .
Then again , with sufficiently many babies being circ 'd it follows that it will happen to some.I also imagine it may have an impact on other types of re-constructive surgery , should your sons ever have the misfortune of being hurt in an accident or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I asked all the questions -- is it necessary, is it recommended, why or why not, etc.
Well here is one you did not consider.
About one in every few thousand babies born is transsexual.
That is, the neurological gender of their brain does not match the apparent sex of their body.
Typically these people will desire surgical "correction" of their genitals latter in life, and availability of skin is one of the key variables that impact the outcome.
Now I realize this is a rare occurrence, but it does happen, and since I'm transsexual myself and thus know just how shit it can be, I can only hope that neither of your sons will turn out to be transsexual.
Then again, with sufficiently many babies being circ'd it follows that it will happen to some.I also imagine it may have an impact on other types of re-constructive surgery, should your sons ever have the misfortune of being hurt in an accident or something.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942130</id>
	<title>Re:sweet</title>
	<author>pilgrim23</author>
	<datestamp>1264676340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Q: why is  phoning your mom like sluffing skin ? A:  one is making a phone call, the other is making a clone fall....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Q : why is phoning your mom like sluffing skin ?
A : one is making a phone call , the other is making a clone fall... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Q: why is  phoning your mom like sluffing skin ?
A:  one is making a phone call, the other is making a clone fall....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30941972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942892</id>
	<title>check out the excessively big brain on Brad</title>
	<author>Onymous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1264679100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't get carried away and be all rash now.</p><p>Some drugs actually promote neurogenesis.  <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253627/" title="nih.gov">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253627/</a> [nih.gov]</p><p>You wouldn't want to get stoned all the time and then have this new cell therapy and end up with too many neurons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't get carried away and be all rash now.Some drugs actually promote neurogenesis .
http : //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253627/ [ nih.gov ] You would n't want to get stoned all the time and then have this new cell therapy and end up with too many neurons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't get carried away and be all rash now.Some drugs actually promote neurogenesis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253627/ [nih.gov]You wouldn't want to get stoned all the time and then have this new cell therapy and end up with too many neurons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943028</id>
	<title>Re:Embryonic stem cells shouldn't be replaced</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1264679700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this because of Real Science concerns or just because there is a group of people who don't like embryonic stem cells for religious reasons.</p><p>If you can get your research done without a bunch of rabid bible thumpers yelling at you... All the better...</p><p>If you are pushing continuing the process because of political reasons or because you just don't want to loose then it isn't science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this because of Real Science concerns or just because there is a group of people who do n't like embryonic stem cells for religious reasons.If you can get your research done without a bunch of rabid bible thumpers yelling at you... All the better...If you are pushing continuing the process because of political reasons or because you just do n't want to loose then it is n't science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this because of Real Science concerns or just because there is a group of people who don't like embryonic stem cells for religious reasons.If you can get your research done without a bunch of rabid bible thumpers yelling at you... All the better...If you are pushing continuing the process because of political reasons or because you just don't want to loose then it isn't science.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942832</id>
	<title>Cell Wars.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264678860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The article also points out that this method could work around the ethical issues surrounding embryonic stem-cell research."</p><p>Would we have had this development if there hadn't been any ethical issues with embryonic stem cells?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The article also points out that this method could work around the ethical issues surrounding embryonic stem-cell research .
" Would we have had this development if there had n't been any ethical issues with embryonic stem cells ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The article also points out that this method could work around the ethical issues surrounding embryonic stem-cell research.
"Would we have had this development if there hadn't been any ethical issues with embryonic stem cells?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30948044</id>
	<title>Re:Cheers!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264772160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as you are OK with forgetting everything you know, and basically becoming a new person...</p><p>Because you sure won&rsquo;t get back your old dendrites. And if 10\% of your brain cells are wrecked beyond repair from drugs, I&rsquo;ll sign you a statement, saying that the other 90\% are at least very close to it too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as you are OK with forgetting everything you know , and basically becoming a new person...Because you sure won    t get back your old dendrites .
And if 10 \ % of your brain cells are wrecked beyond repair from drugs , I    ll sign you a statement , saying that the other 90 \ % are at least very close to it too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as you are OK with forgetting everything you know, and basically becoming a new person...Because you sure won’t get back your old dendrites.
And if 10\% of your brain cells are wrecked beyond repair from drugs, I’ll sign you a statement, saying that the other 90\% are at least very close to it too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30947504</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect explanation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264764480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>:( It is better to have loved and lost than never loves at all.</p><p>so the same could be said...</p><p>It's better to have felt foreskin in action, then never at all....?</p><p>it's an unnecessary, EXPENSIVE, operation. Wasteful. They just throw the foreskin away....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>: ( It is better to have loved and lost than never loves at all.so the same could be said...It 's better to have felt foreskin in action , then never at all.... ? it 's an unnecessary , EXPENSIVE , operation .
Wasteful. They just throw the foreskin away... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>:( It is better to have loved and lost than never loves at all.so the same could be said...It's better to have felt foreskin in action, then never at all....?it's an unnecessary, EXPENSIVE, operation.
Wasteful. They just throw the foreskin away....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943040</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30945020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30946944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30945152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30948898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30959722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30947532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30947360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30946906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30945360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30945570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30947020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30946996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30945094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30991732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30941972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30946964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30946738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30945412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30946962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30945916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30947504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30945226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30945320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30948044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30945472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30945330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30948638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30947932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2145202_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_2145202.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30941972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942130
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942640
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_2145202.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30946964
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_2145202.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942946
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943028
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_2145202.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_2145202.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30946944
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30945094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942904
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30945226
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30948638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30945472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_2145202.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944172
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_2145202.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30946962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30945412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30945320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943526
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30945152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30991732
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30948898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943306
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943640
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_2145202.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30947932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942602
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30959722
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_2145202.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942418
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943040
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30946996
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30947504
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943778
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944792
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944866
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944374
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30946738
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30947360
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30946906
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944730
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944160
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30945330
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943534
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944220
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30945360
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30944434
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30945570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30945020
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30947020
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30947532
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943300
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_2145202.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942408
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_2145202.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30943626
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_2145202.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30942892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30945916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2145202.30948044
</commentlist>
</conversation>
