<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_04_1915253</id>
	<title>Why the First Cowboy To Draw Always Gets Shot</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1265270400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>cremeglace writes <i>"Have you ever noticed that the first cowboy to draw his gun in a Hollywood Western is invariably the one to get shot? Nobel-winning physicist Niels Bohr did, once arranging mock duels to test the validity of this cinematic curiosity. Researchers have now confirmed that <a href="http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2010/203/1">people indeed move faster if they are reacting</a>, rather than acting first."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>cremeglace writes " Have you ever noticed that the first cowboy to draw his gun in a Hollywood Western is invariably the one to get shot ?
Nobel-winning physicist Niels Bohr did , once arranging mock duels to test the validity of this cinematic curiosity .
Researchers have now confirmed that people indeed move faster if they are reacting , rather than acting first .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cremeglace writes "Have you ever noticed that the first cowboy to draw his gun in a Hollywood Western is invariably the one to get shot?
Nobel-winning physicist Niels Bohr did, once arranging mock duels to test the validity of this cinematic curiosity.
Researchers have now confirmed that people indeed move faster if they are reacting, rather than acting first.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31029508</id>
	<title>Cops face no consequences for a 'bad' shooting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265291820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When was the last time a cop was arrested for a 'bad' shooting?</p><p>Yeah, there may be a lot of "legal mumbo-jumbo" for the cop to deal with if he shoots someone.  But real consequences anywhere *near* being on par with losing your life (e.g. a long jail term) -- that's something American cops simply don't have to worry about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When was the last time a cop was arrested for a 'bad ' shooting ? Yeah , there may be a lot of " legal mumbo-jumbo " for the cop to deal with if he shoots someone .
But real consequences anywhere * near * being on par with losing your life ( e.g .
a long jail term ) -- that 's something American cops simply do n't have to worry about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When was the last time a cop was arrested for a 'bad' shooting?Yeah, there may be a lot of "legal mumbo-jumbo" for the cop to deal with if he shoots someone.
But real consequences anywhere *near* being on par with losing your life (e.g.
a long jail term) -- that's something American cops simply don't have to worry about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31034188</id>
	<title>Re:Unforgivable!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265383680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. He shot first, missed, then Greedo reacted but intentionally missed Han Solo, hoping that Han Solo would come to his senses because of that.</p><p>Then, Han Solo reacted to the reaction and shot Greedo.</p><p>Han Solo is a very bad person. His stench reaches heaven.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
He shot first , missed , then Greedo reacted but intentionally missed Han Solo , hoping that Han Solo would come to his senses because of that.Then , Han Solo reacted to the reaction and shot Greedo.Han Solo is a very bad person .
His stench reaches heaven .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
He shot first, missed, then Greedo reacted but intentionally missed Han Solo, hoping that Han Solo would come to his senses because of that.Then, Han Solo reacted to the reaction and shot Greedo.Han Solo is a very bad person.
His stench reaches heaven.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027680</id>
	<title>Re:Hollywood has it wrong anyway.</title>
	<author>AndersOSU</author>
	<datestamp>1265281620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you hunt with?  I'm by no means a fire arms expert, but I'd guess that the high powered rifle you use packs a bit more punch than a 1880 colt peacemaker.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you hunt with ?
I 'm by no means a fire arms expert , but I 'd guess that the high powered rifle you use packs a bit more punch than a 1880 colt peacemaker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you hunt with?
I'm by no means a fire arms expert, but I'd guess that the high powered rifle you use packs a bit more punch than a 1880 colt peacemaker.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027444</id>
	<title>Re:Fast vs Accurate</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1265280180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but if both parties do that, then the one who can do it the fastest wins.<br>That's the balance, you want to be as fast as possible while still being able to aim, even a little more faster and you will probably miss.<br>Of course in many gun fights both parties are moving.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but if both parties do that , then the one who can do it the fastest wins.That 's the balance , you want to be as fast as possible while still being able to aim , even a little more faster and you will probably miss.Of course in many gun fights both parties are moving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but if both parties do that, then the one who can do it the fastest wins.That's the balance, you want to be as fast as possible while still being able to aim, even a little more faster and you will probably miss.Of course in many gun fights both parties are moving.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31028410</id>
	<title>Re:In movies, it's a Morality lesson</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1265285340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always thought it was because if the guy who drew first usually won, then there'd be no point to those dramatic stand-offs where everyone waits for someone else to draw.  They'd just be giving the other guys a chance to kill them.  The bad guy would draw immediately.</p><p>And only sometimes is it implied that the good guy wouldn't draw first.  It's just there's the stand off that has to happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always thought it was because if the guy who drew first usually won , then there 'd be no point to those dramatic stand-offs where everyone waits for someone else to draw .
They 'd just be giving the other guys a chance to kill them .
The bad guy would draw immediately.And only sometimes is it implied that the good guy would n't draw first .
It 's just there 's the stand off that has to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always thought it was because if the guy who drew first usually won, then there'd be no point to those dramatic stand-offs where everyone waits for someone else to draw.
They'd just be giving the other guys a chance to kill them.
The bad guy would draw immediately.And only sometimes is it implied that the good guy wouldn't draw first.
It's just there's the stand off that has to happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31029156</id>
	<title>Adrenaline?</title>
	<author>Prien715</author>
	<datestamp>1265289660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know how you'd reproduce this in a clinical environment, but IRL, if someone starts to draw a gun, it's going to trigger a fight or flight reponse and pump you full of adrenaline.  Maybe the person who's doing the drawing isn't serious, while for you it doesn't even process the event at that level: it's just reflex.</p><p>Pushing 3 buttons on a computer in response to a box changing color doesn't seem like it would trigger the same response at all -- that box isn't exactly threatening your existence.  And I assume in the real case, you've got a bunch of experience firing a gun to the point where doing so is pretty subconscious...unlike the box case, which requires fine motor control, but you have 0 practice doing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know how you 'd reproduce this in a clinical environment , but IRL , if someone starts to draw a gun , it 's going to trigger a fight or flight reponse and pump you full of adrenaline .
Maybe the person who 's doing the drawing is n't serious , while for you it does n't even process the event at that level : it 's just reflex.Pushing 3 buttons on a computer in response to a box changing color does n't seem like it would trigger the same response at all -- that box is n't exactly threatening your existence .
And I assume in the real case , you 've got a bunch of experience firing a gun to the point where doing so is pretty subconscious...unlike the box case , which requires fine motor control , but you have 0 practice doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know how you'd reproduce this in a clinical environment, but IRL, if someone starts to draw a gun, it's going to trigger a fight or flight reponse and pump you full of adrenaline.
Maybe the person who's doing the drawing isn't serious, while for you it doesn't even process the event at that level: it's just reflex.Pushing 3 buttons on a computer in response to a box changing color doesn't seem like it would trigger the same response at all -- that box isn't exactly threatening your existence.
And I assume in the real case, you've got a bunch of experience firing a gun to the point where doing so is pretty subconscious...unlike the box case, which requires fine motor control, but you have 0 practice doing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026036</id>
	<title>Must be joking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265274120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This must be why people can think up a comeback before I'm finished with the original joke.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This must be why people can think up a comeback before I 'm finished with the original joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This must be why people can think up a comeback before I'm finished with the original joke.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026186</id>
	<title>The bad guy always loses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265274660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the bad guy that draws first.  The good guy only shoots in self-defense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the bad guy that draws first .
The good guy only shoots in self-defense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the bad guy that draws first.
The good guy only shoots in self-defense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026424</id>
	<title>Re:Oblig.</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1265275620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The alien didn't shoot at all. If I shoot you, it's not likely you'll shoot back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The alien did n't shoot at all .
If I shoot you , it 's not likely you 'll shoot back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The alien didn't shoot at all.
If I shoot you, it's not likely you'll shoot back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31033432</id>
	<title>Ok, but...</title>
	<author>vegiVamp</author>
	<datestamp>1265377080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I find more interesting, it that this is presented (by the scientists, reporters, editors, whoever) as suggesting that Hollywood has been accurate, instead of been mostly interested in the best theatrics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I find more interesting , it that this is presented ( by the scientists , reporters , editors , whoever ) as suggesting that Hollywood has been accurate , instead of been mostly interested in the best theatrics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I find more interesting, it that this is presented (by the scientists, reporters, editors, whoever) as suggesting that Hollywood has been accurate, instead of been mostly interested in the best theatrics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31029090</id>
	<title>Re:Oblig.</title>
	<author>Buelldozer</author>
	<datestamp>1265289120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where did you get that idea? It's quite common for someone who has been shot to continue standing and even firing their weapon. Only in the movies does one shot consistently "drop" the bad guy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where did you get that idea ?
It 's quite common for someone who has been shot to continue standing and even firing their weapon .
Only in the movies does one shot consistently " drop " the bad guy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where did you get that idea?
It's quite common for someone who has been shot to continue standing and even firing their weapon.
Only in the movies does one shot consistently "drop" the bad guy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31032874</id>
	<title>Somebody read (and understand) the facts, please</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1265368920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somewhere on the way this story changed from telling this:</p><p><a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18463-draw-the-neuroscience-behind-hollywood-shootouts.html" title="newscientist.com">http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18463-draw-the-neuroscience-behind-hollywood-shootouts.html</a> [newscientist.com]</p><p>to saying the opposite. Perhaps people didn't read it closely enough?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somewhere on the way this story changed from telling this : http : //www.newscientist.com/article/dn18463-draw-the-neuroscience-behind-hollywood-shootouts.html [ newscientist.com ] to saying the opposite .
Perhaps people did n't read it closely enough ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somewhere on the way this story changed from telling this:http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18463-draw-the-neuroscience-behind-hollywood-shootouts.html [newscientist.com]to saying the opposite.
Perhaps people didn't read it closely enough?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026496</id>
	<title>Re:The mythbusters need to test this!</title>
	<author>loafula</author>
	<datestamp>1265275920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The mythbusters need to test this!</p></div><p>on eachother...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The mythbusters need to test this ! on eachother.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The mythbusters need to test this!on eachother...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026114</id>
	<title>Han shot first?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265274480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if Han shot first it's because Greedo was already drawing his pistol.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if Han shot first it 's because Greedo was already drawing his pistol .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if Han shot first it's because Greedo was already drawing his pistol.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027080</id>
	<title>Re:Bad summary</title>
	<author>kaputtfurleben</author>
	<datestamp>1265278320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Additionally, it adds the assumption that the second shooter always winning is somehow a widely know 'fact'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Additionally , it adds the assumption that the second shooter always winning is somehow a widely know 'fact' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Additionally, it adds the assumption that the second shooter always winning is somehow a widely know 'fact'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027056</id>
	<title>Han shot first</title>
	<author>OglinTatas</author>
	<datestamp>1265278260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...but Greedo drew first, so I guess the effect extends to space ruffians too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...but Greedo drew first , so I guess the effect extends to space ruffians too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but Greedo drew first, so I guess the effect extends to space ruffians too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026666</id>
	<title>Re:Unforgivable!</title>
	<author>Translation Error</author>
	<datestamp>1265276580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, in the last paragraph it concluded that the increased reaction speed wasn't great enough to offset starting later.  The research team believes that Bohr, the man who conducted the first experiments on the subject and won every time when drawing second, was simply much better than his opponent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , in the last paragraph it concluded that the increased reaction speed was n't great enough to offset starting later .
The research team believes that Bohr , the man who conducted the first experiments on the subject and won every time when drawing second , was simply much better than his opponent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, in the last paragraph it concluded that the increased reaction speed wasn't great enough to offset starting later.
The research team believes that Bohr, the man who conducted the first experiments on the subject and won every time when drawing second, was simply much better than his opponent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31032620</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1265365860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>.. in Westerns, the guy who draws first is always the bad guy. And the bad guy always loses. Easy.

But this isn't remotely new. Consider a Samurai battle. Two Samurai might face each other for hours, without actually striking, waiting for an opening. Any attack inherently offers an opening, particularly when you're using the same two-handed sword for offense as well as defense. In "A Book of Five Rings", Miyamoto Musashi teaches the concept of alway remaining focused but relaxed in an encounter, and counter-attacking simultaneous with the original attack. This is used very heavily in Aikido, which is a martial art based entirely on defense/counter-attacks (I practiced it for five and a half years).. you basically blend with the motion of an attack, hopefully making the attack ineffective. Sure, it's much harder to learn than some other martial arts, and we don't get to break boards. But we do get to practice with weapons.

Of course, Musashi also created niten'ichi, the two sword technique (one katana, one shorter sword, the wakizashi, which were originally recycled from broken katana). Even better to defend and counter-attack at the same time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>.. in Westerns , the guy who draws first is always the bad guy .
And the bad guy always loses .
Easy . But this is n't remotely new .
Consider a Samurai battle .
Two Samurai might face each other for hours , without actually striking , waiting for an opening .
Any attack inherently offers an opening , particularly when you 're using the same two-handed sword for offense as well as defense .
In " A Book of Five Rings " , Miyamoto Musashi teaches the concept of alway remaining focused but relaxed in an encounter , and counter-attacking simultaneous with the original attack .
This is used very heavily in Aikido , which is a martial art based entirely on defense/counter-attacks ( I practiced it for five and a half years ) .. you basically blend with the motion of an attack , hopefully making the attack ineffective .
Sure , it 's much harder to learn than some other martial arts , and we do n't get to break boards .
But we do get to practice with weapons .
Of course , Musashi also created niten'ichi , the two sword technique ( one katana , one shorter sword , the wakizashi , which were originally recycled from broken katana ) .
Even better to defend and counter-attack at the same time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.. in Westerns, the guy who draws first is always the bad guy.
And the bad guy always loses.
Easy.

But this isn't remotely new.
Consider a Samurai battle.
Two Samurai might face each other for hours, without actually striking, waiting for an opening.
Any attack inherently offers an opening, particularly when you're using the same two-handed sword for offense as well as defense.
In "A Book of Five Rings", Miyamoto Musashi teaches the concept of alway remaining focused but relaxed in an encounter, and counter-attacking simultaneous with the original attack.
This is used very heavily in Aikido, which is a martial art based entirely on defense/counter-attacks (I practiced it for five and a half years).. you basically blend with the motion of an attack, hopefully making the attack ineffective.
Sure, it's much harder to learn than some other martial arts, and we don't get to break boards.
But we do get to practice with weapons.
Of course, Musashi also created niten'ichi, the two sword technique (one katana, one shorter sword, the wakizashi, which were originally recycled from broken katana).
Even better to defend and counter-attack at the same time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31029200</id>
	<title>Re:eastwood movies</title>
	<author>myowntrueself</author>
	<datestamp>1265289900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fistfull of Dollars.</p><p>Its an amazing scene. The one where he is complaining about them laughing at his mule, then he kills them all.</p><p>If you watch Clint you can almost see what he is doing while he is talking with them and making the joke; he is rehearsing his shots in his mind while keeping them occupied and laughing at him, going through the motions he will need to execute to draw and pull off a shot at each one. One-two-three, one-two-three then *bang* he executes the action in a single perfect moment.</p><p>He doesn't just draw and shoot; its immaculately practiced internally before being put into action. Thats how you draw first and win.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fistfull of Dollars.Its an amazing scene .
The one where he is complaining about them laughing at his mule , then he kills them all.If you watch Clint you can almost see what he is doing while he is talking with them and making the joke ; he is rehearsing his shots in his mind while keeping them occupied and laughing at him , going through the motions he will need to execute to draw and pull off a shot at each one .
One-two-three , one-two-three then * bang * he executes the action in a single perfect moment.He does n't just draw and shoot ; its immaculately practiced internally before being put into action .
Thats how you draw first and win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fistfull of Dollars.Its an amazing scene.
The one where he is complaining about them laughing at his mule, then he kills them all.If you watch Clint you can almost see what he is doing while he is talking with them and making the joke; he is rehearsing his shots in his mind while keeping them occupied and laughing at him, going through the motions he will need to execute to draw and pull off a shot at each one.
One-two-three, one-two-three then *bang* he executes the action in a single perfect moment.He doesn't just draw and shoot; its immaculately practiced internally before being put into action.
Thats how you draw first and win.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026202</id>
	<title>Sen No Sen</title>
	<author>Danimoth</author>
	<datestamp>1265274720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any karate practitioner could have told you this.  Intercepting a reverse punch with another reverse punch is one of the most common tequniques, especially among more traditional karateka.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any karate practitioner could have told you this .
Intercepting a reverse punch with another reverse punch is one of the most common tequniques , especially among more traditional karateka .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any karate practitioner could have told you this.
Intercepting a reverse punch with another reverse punch is one of the most common tequniques, especially among more traditional karateka.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027442</id>
	<title>Re:The mythbusters need to test this!</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1265280180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Subject: The mythbusters need to test this!<br>
Comment: The mythbusters need to test this!</p></div>

</blockquote><p>So, I guess the subject got shot by the comment, since it drew first?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Subject : The mythbusters need to test this !
Comment : The mythbusters need to test this !
So , I guess the subject got shot by the comment , since it drew first ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Subject: The mythbusters need to test this!
Comment: The mythbusters need to test this!
So, I guess the subject got shot by the comment, since it drew first?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026084</id>
	<title>Bad summary</title>
	<author>RealErmine</author>
	<datestamp>1265274360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did the submitter or editors read the story? At the end they plainly state that even though the second "shooter" reacted faster, they could not make up the difference in time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did the submitter or editors read the story ?
At the end they plainly state that even though the second " shooter " reacted faster , they could not make up the difference in time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did the submitter or editors read the story?
At the end they plainly state that even though the second "shooter" reacted faster, they could not make up the difference in time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31028808</id>
	<title>Re:In movies, it's a Morality lesson</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1265287440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They didn't lose Han in the original when he shot first (and only).  It made him more bad-ass, and made his change from the bad guy to the good guy more poignant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They did n't lose Han in the original when he shot first ( and only ) .
It made him more bad-ass , and made his change from the bad guy to the good guy more poignant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They didn't lose Han in the original when he shot first (and only).
It made him more bad-ass, and made his change from the bad guy to the good guy more poignant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026138</id>
	<title>The mythbusters need to test this!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265274540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The mythbusters need to test this!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The mythbusters need to test this !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The mythbusters need to test this!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027522</id>
	<title>Re:In movies, it's a Morality lesson</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1265280600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you seen Judge Roy Bean?</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNM64VP2JBw" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNM64VP2JBw</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>The smart way to deal with a maniac.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you seen Judge Roy Bean ? http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = yNM64VP2JBw [ youtube.com ] The smart way to deal with a maniac .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you seen Judge Roy Bean?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNM64VP2JBw [youtube.com]The smart way to deal with a maniac.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026172</id>
	<title>Brokeback Mountain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265274660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe they didn't like artists back in the wild west, after all it's a bit gay...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they did n't like artists back in the wild west , after all it 's a bit gay.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they didn't like artists back in the wild west, after all it's a bit gay...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027242</id>
	<title>Re:Bad summary</title>
	<author>mdarksbane</author>
	<datestamp>1265279040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The perp has something to lose - he could get shot. The officer has the added concern of accidentally killing someone for trying to pull out their license. Most cops I've heard speak after being involved in a shooting (even a legitimate one) seemed to consider that a lot more important than the paperwork.</p><p>The biggest difference is that the officer has to read and react, whereas the bad guy has a much simpler set of actions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The perp has something to lose - he could get shot .
The officer has the added concern of accidentally killing someone for trying to pull out their license .
Most cops I 've heard speak after being involved in a shooting ( even a legitimate one ) seemed to consider that a lot more important than the paperwork.The biggest difference is that the officer has to read and react , whereas the bad guy has a much simpler set of actions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The perp has something to lose - he could get shot.
The officer has the added concern of accidentally killing someone for trying to pull out their license.
Most cops I've heard speak after being involved in a shooting (even a legitimate one) seemed to consider that a lot more important than the paperwork.The biggest difference is that the officer has to read and react, whereas the bad guy has a much simpler set of actions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31031800</id>
	<title>Re:In movies, it's a Morality lesson</title>
	<author>CharlyFoxtrot</author>
	<datestamp>1265310900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The guy who draws first is the agressor, we can't let the agressor win.</p></div><p>That seems awfully old fashioned in these times of preemptive wars doesn't it ?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The guy who draws first is the agressor , we ca n't let the agressor win.That seems awfully old fashioned in these times of preemptive wars does n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The guy who draws first is the agressor, we can't let the agressor win.That seems awfully old fashioned in these times of preemptive wars doesn't it ?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026098</id>
	<title>uh, Cowboy Neal...</title>
	<author>BearRanger</author>
	<datestamp>1265274360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is that your six gun in your pocket or did you just shoot first?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that your six gun in your pocket or did you just shoot first ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that your six gun in your pocket or did you just shoot first?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31031896</id>
	<title>Good guy vs. bad guy</title>
	<author>Jessta</author>
	<datestamp>1265311980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always thought this was about the fact that the bad guy always draws first(because he's evil and wants to kill people) and the good guy always wins.<br>The good guy can't draw first because he's supposed to be avoiding the conflict and trying not to kill anyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always thought this was about the fact that the bad guy always draws first ( because he 's evil and wants to kill people ) and the good guy always wins.The good guy ca n't draw first because he 's supposed to be avoiding the conflict and trying not to kill anyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always thought this was about the fact that the bad guy always draws first(because he's evil and wants to kill people) and the good guy always wins.The good guy can't draw first because he's supposed to be avoiding the conflict and trying not to kill anyone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027404</id>
	<title>Did Nice Guy Eddie shoot first?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265280000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He fell first so someone shot him but according to this theory, he must have drawn or shot first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He fell first so someone shot him but according to this theory , he must have drawn or shot first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He fell first so someone shot him but according to this theory, he must have drawn or shot first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027440</id>
	<title>Timothy strikes again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265280180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The poster is timothy.  He almost always misunderstands the article.  Posting a summary that directly contradicts the conclusion of the article is basically his SMO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The poster is timothy .
He almost always misunderstands the article .
Posting a summary that directly contradicts the conclusion of the article is basically his SMO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The poster is timothy.
He almost always misunderstands the article.
Posting a summary that directly contradicts the conclusion of the article is basically his SMO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31029074</id>
	<title>Re:Corollary</title>
	<author>Buelldozer</author>
	<datestamp>1265289000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably close to true in real life as well unless the Uzi wielder has had training and extensive practice. Uzi's, like most automatic weaponry, fall victim to muzzle climb. In a nutshell unless you know WTF you're doing anything past your 2nd or 3rd round is going to be seriously off target.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably close to true in real life as well unless the Uzi wielder has had training and extensive practice .
Uzi 's , like most automatic weaponry , fall victim to muzzle climb .
In a nutshell unless you know WTF you 're doing anything past your 2nd or 3rd round is going to be seriously off target .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably close to true in real life as well unless the Uzi wielder has had training and extensive practice.
Uzi's, like most automatic weaponry, fall victim to muzzle climb.
In a nutshell unless you know WTF you're doing anything past your 2nd or 3rd round is going to be seriously off target.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31032658</id>
	<title>Re:Corollary</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1265366160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Movie Principle. In Westerns, the bad guy draws first, the good guy wins. In cop/action movies, the bad guy always has the Uzi, the good guy always has the handgun. Unless he took an Uzi from a bad guy, of course.</p><p>Also, in many action films, the good guy is a secret superhero, like James Bond or Jack Bauer. He can be hurt, sometimes, but cannot possible be killed. So of course he can use a single handgun to fight off an army of bad guys with Uzis or other heavy weaponry -- he is invincible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Movie Principle .
In Westerns , the bad guy draws first , the good guy wins .
In cop/action movies , the bad guy always has the Uzi , the good guy always has the handgun .
Unless he took an Uzi from a bad guy , of course.Also , in many action films , the good guy is a secret superhero , like James Bond or Jack Bauer .
He can be hurt , sometimes , but can not possible be killed .
So of course he can use a single handgun to fight off an army of bad guys with Uzis or other heavy weaponry -- he is invincible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Movie Principle.
In Westerns, the bad guy draws first, the good guy wins.
In cop/action movies, the bad guy always has the Uzi, the good guy always has the handgun.
Unless he took an Uzi from a bad guy, of course.Also, in many action films, the good guy is a secret superhero, like James Bond or Jack Bauer.
He can be hurt, sometimes, but cannot possible be killed.
So of course he can use a single handgun to fight off an army of bad guys with Uzis or other heavy weaponry -- he is invincible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026466</id>
	<title>Hollywood has it wrong anyway.</title>
	<author>Skidborg</author>
	<datestamp>1265275800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can probably survive being shot long enough to take your time aiming and putting a bullet in the other guy's chest or head anyway.

Of course, a movie that ends with both duel participants slowly bleeding to death from poorly placed shots doesn't make money like Hollywood fantasy duels do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can probably survive being shot long enough to take your time aiming and putting a bullet in the other guy 's chest or head anyway .
Of course , a movie that ends with both duel participants slowly bleeding to death from poorly placed shots does n't make money like Hollywood fantasy duels do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can probably survive being shot long enough to take your time aiming and putting a bullet in the other guy's chest or head anyway.
Of course, a movie that ends with both duel participants slowly bleeding to death from poorly placed shots doesn't make money like Hollywood fantasy duels do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026130</id>
	<title>Airforce tests show...</title>
	<author>frnic</author>
	<datestamp>1265274480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a long time ago that there is a 3/4 second delay from seeing to reacting. So, if you wait to see the other start to draw you need to be at least 3/4 second faster in drawing and shooting to make that up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a long time ago that there is a 3/4 second delay from seeing to reacting .
So , if you wait to see the other start to draw you need to be at least 3/4 second faster in drawing and shooting to make that up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a long time ago that there is a 3/4 second delay from seeing to reacting.
So, if you wait to see the other start to draw you need to be at least 3/4 second faster in drawing and shooting to make that up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31028150</id>
	<title>Re:Unforgivable!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265283900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, but Han never actually drew his blaster.  He was seated at the time, allowing him to shoot first without removing the weapon from its holster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , but Han never actually drew his blaster .
He was seated at the time , allowing him to shoot first without removing the weapon from its holster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, but Han never actually drew his blaster.
He was seated at the time, allowing him to shoot first without removing the weapon from its holster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31030328</id>
	<title>Action focuses the eye on the target.</title>
	<author>lpq</author>
	<datestamp>1265298180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The one who moves first is 'moving' (in place).  That bit of action focuses the eye of a responder and gives them a better visual target than the first guy has.  If you stand absolutely still when someone shoots you, you don't present as good a target as if you are moving your arms or making some motion (but not large enough motion that it would throw off the other person's perspective of your center of target.</p><p>It's like bull fighting -- if you stand still with the red-cape, the bull may or may not go at you or the cape.  But if you wave the red cape, the bull goes after the target that is moving.</p><p>Our visual system is designed to pick up *differences* faster than 'sameness'.  The motion of drawing the gun would often generate a 'difference' in an opponent's visual field, thus providing a better target.</p><p>At least that's my observations....I suppose I could read the article, but they are just researchers.</p><p>What do they know?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)<br>-l</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The one who moves first is 'moving ' ( in place ) .
That bit of action focuses the eye of a responder and gives them a better visual target than the first guy has .
If you stand absolutely still when someone shoots you , you do n't present as good a target as if you are moving your arms or making some motion ( but not large enough motion that it would throw off the other person 's perspective of your center of target.It 's like bull fighting -- if you stand still with the red-cape , the bull may or may not go at you or the cape .
But if you wave the red cape , the bull goes after the target that is moving.Our visual system is designed to pick up * differences * faster than 'sameness' .
The motion of drawing the gun would often generate a 'difference ' in an opponent 's visual field , thus providing a better target.At least that 's my observations....I suppose I could read the article , but they are just researchers.What do they know ?
: - ) -l</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The one who moves first is 'moving' (in place).
That bit of action focuses the eye of a responder and gives them a better visual target than the first guy has.
If you stand absolutely still when someone shoots you, you don't present as good a target as if you are moving your arms or making some motion (but not large enough motion that it would throw off the other person's perspective of your center of target.It's like bull fighting -- if you stand still with the red-cape, the bull may or may not go at you or the cape.
But if you wave the red cape, the bull goes after the target that is moving.Our visual system is designed to pick up *differences* faster than 'sameness'.
The motion of drawing the gun would often generate a 'difference' in an opponent's visual field, thus providing a better target.At least that's my observations....I suppose I could read the article, but they are just researchers.What do they know?
:-)-l</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026410</id>
	<title>Re:Bad summary</title>
	<author>mdarksbane</author>
	<datestamp>1265275560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is pretty important, and follows the police and self-defense literature I've read. It's a real concern for officers who might have a gun pointed at a suspect who draws and fires.</p><p>Previous studies have shown that even though the officer should have an advantage, if they actually process what is being drawn instead of just firing, the suspect who began with a gun at their head wins most of the time. Reading some of those studies provided a whole new perspective on all of the horrible "cop accidentally shoots a kid with a toy gun" moments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is pretty important , and follows the police and self-defense literature I 've read .
It 's a real concern for officers who might have a gun pointed at a suspect who draws and fires.Previous studies have shown that even though the officer should have an advantage , if they actually process what is being drawn instead of just firing , the suspect who began with a gun at their head wins most of the time .
Reading some of those studies provided a whole new perspective on all of the horrible " cop accidentally shoots a kid with a toy gun " moments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is pretty important, and follows the police and self-defense literature I've read.
It's a real concern for officers who might have a gun pointed at a suspect who draws and fires.Previous studies have shown that even though the officer should have an advantage, if they actually process what is being drawn instead of just firing, the suspect who began with a gun at their head wins most of the time.
Reading some of those studies provided a whole new perspective on all of the horrible "cop accidentally shoots a kid with a toy gun" moments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31031252</id>
	<title>Re:Bad summary</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1265306220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the second shooter can act on a <i>informed</i> decision.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the second shooter can act on a informed decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the second shooter can act on a informed decision.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31029154</id>
	<title>Re:Unforgivable!</title>
	<author>Fly+Navy</author>
	<datestamp>1265289660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bah!  Go watch the movie again!  Well, the first, unedited one.  Greedo DREW first but Han SHOT first.  Much better reaction time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bah !
Go watch the movie again !
Well , the first , unedited one .
Greedo DREW first but Han SHOT first .
Much better reaction time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bah!
Go watch the movie again!
Well, the first, unedited one.
Greedo DREW first but Han SHOT first.
Much better reaction time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026902</id>
	<title>Re:Hollywood has it wrong anyway.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265277480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have a bullet in you you're not likely to think about anything but the bullet. If it's in your head you won't be able to think about anything, period.</p><p>Have you ever gone hunting? The animal usually goes right down. Sometimes not, but usually the animal seems to die immediately.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have a bullet in you you 're not likely to think about anything but the bullet .
If it 's in your head you wo n't be able to think about anything , period.Have you ever gone hunting ?
The animal usually goes right down .
Sometimes not , but usually the animal seems to die immediately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have a bullet in you you're not likely to think about anything but the bullet.
If it's in your head you won't be able to think about anything, period.Have you ever gone hunting?
The animal usually goes right down.
Sometimes not, but usually the animal seems to die immediately.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027730</id>
	<title>Re:The bad guy always loses</title>
	<author>snspdaarf</author>
	<datestamp>1265281800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You must not have seen <i>Battle Beyond The Stars</i>. Cowboy died in that movie, and he was the good guy!</p></div><p>And if you didn't see the movie, count yourself as lucky. Not the worst ever made, but close. Very close.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You must not have seen Battle Beyond The Stars .
Cowboy died in that movie , and he was the good guy ! And if you did n't see the movie , count yourself as lucky .
Not the worst ever made , but close .
Very close .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must not have seen Battle Beyond The Stars.
Cowboy died in that movie, and he was the good guy!And if you didn't see the movie, count yourself as lucky.
Not the worst ever made, but close.
Very close.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31029330</id>
	<title>In martial arts too...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265290800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good to know that it's been scientifically proven but in martial arts it's been well-known since a long time and there are even martial artists who master (?) the art (pun ?) of striking first faking a reaction: you picture your opponent attacking first even tough it's not true and you hence create a "fake" reaction which enhance your striking speed.  Casus clay was doing that.  Lot's of chinese Kung-Fu practionners do it too.  It requires skills but it works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good to know that it 's been scientifically proven but in martial arts it 's been well-known since a long time and there are even martial artists who master ( ?
) the art ( pun ?
) of striking first faking a reaction : you picture your opponent attacking first even tough it 's not true and you hence create a " fake " reaction which enhance your striking speed .
Casus clay was doing that .
Lot 's of chinese Kung-Fu practionners do it too .
It requires skills but it works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good to know that it's been scientifically proven but in martial arts it's been well-known since a long time and there are even martial artists who master (?
) the art (pun ?
) of striking first faking a reaction: you picture your opponent attacking first even tough it's not true and you hence create a "fake" reaction which enhance your striking speed.
Casus clay was doing that.
Lot's of chinese Kung-Fu practionners do it too.
It requires skills but it works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026896</id>
	<title>Corollary</title>
	<author>Trip6</author>
	<datestamp>1265277480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you ever notice that if a movie shootout occurs between a guy with an Uzi and a guy with a handgun, the guy with the Uzi always loses?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you ever notice that if a movie shootout occurs between a guy with an Uzi and a guy with a handgun , the guy with the Uzi always loses ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you ever notice that if a movie shootout occurs between a guy with an Uzi and a guy with a handgun, the guy with the Uzi always loses?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026018</id>
	<title>Unforgivable!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265274060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They explained that in <i>Unforgiven</i></p><p>Wrter: "But what if he draws first?"</p><p>Sheriff: "Then he'll miss. You see, you can only draw, aim, and shoot so fast. Me, this is about as fast as I can draw my gun and hit anything smaller than a barn. The guy that keeps a cool head, he'll come out standing."</p><p>That was from memory and is obviously not word for word, but the gist is there. It makes sense to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They explained that in UnforgivenWrter : " But what if he draws first ?
" Sheriff : " Then he 'll miss .
You see , you can only draw , aim , and shoot so fast .
Me , this is about as fast as I can draw my gun and hit anything smaller than a barn .
The guy that keeps a cool head , he 'll come out standing .
" That was from memory and is obviously not word for word , but the gist is there .
It makes sense to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They explained that in UnforgivenWrter: "But what if he draws first?
"Sheriff: "Then he'll miss.
You see, you can only draw, aim, and shoot so fast.
Me, this is about as fast as I can draw my gun and hit anything smaller than a barn.
The guy that keeps a cool head, he'll come out standing.
"That was from memory and is obviously not word for word, but the gist is there.
It makes sense to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026676</id>
	<title>Re:Bad summary</title>
	<author>Kral\_Blbec</author>
	<datestamp>1265276640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If there is any disadvantage on the side of the officers that delays their shot, it is the legal mumbo jumbo that they have to deal with if they actually do shoot. The suspect has nothing to loose so he will take the shot as soon as possible, but the officer is trained to wait to the last moment. Different circumstances than a western style showdown.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If there is any disadvantage on the side of the officers that delays their shot , it is the legal mumbo jumbo that they have to deal with if they actually do shoot .
The suspect has nothing to loose so he will take the shot as soon as possible , but the officer is trained to wait to the last moment .
Different circumstances than a western style showdown .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there is any disadvantage on the side of the officers that delays their shot, it is the legal mumbo jumbo that they have to deal with if they actually do shoot.
The suspect has nothing to loose so he will take the shot as soon as possible, but the officer is trained to wait to the last moment.
Different circumstances than a western style showdown.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026168</id>
	<title>New therapies for patients with brain damage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265274600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article mentions that this could be used therapeutically, but up till now all the trials have been abject failures with 100\% mortality as patients with brain damage have terrible aim.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article mentions that this could be used therapeutically , but up till now all the trials have been abject failures with 100 \ % mortality as patients with brain damage have terrible aim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article mentions that this could be used therapeutically, but up till now all the trials have been abject failures with 100\% mortality as patients with brain damage have terrible aim.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026308</id>
	<title>Re:The bad guy always loses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265275200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Han SHOT FIRST!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Han SHOT FIRST !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Han SHOT FIRST!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026290</id>
	<title>Re:Unforgivable!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265275140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So Han Solo Did shoot 2nd! heh<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So Han Solo Did shoot 2nd !
heh : D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Han Solo Did shoot 2nd!
heh :D</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027566</id>
	<title>Re:Unforgivable!</title>
	<author>sourcerror</author>
	<datestamp>1265280840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The research team believes that Bohr, the man who conducted the first experiments on the subject and won every time when drawing second, was simply much better than his opponent.</p></div><p>As a kid I wanted to be a Nobel Prize winning physicist-cowboy too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The research team believes that Bohr , the man who conducted the first experiments on the subject and won every time when drawing second , was simply much better than his opponent.As a kid I wanted to be a Nobel Prize winning physicist-cowboy too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The research team believes that Bohr, the man who conducted the first experiments on the subject and won every time when drawing second, was simply much better than his opponent.As a kid I wanted to be a Nobel Prize winning physicist-cowboy too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31028532</id>
	<title>Re:The mythbusters need to test this!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265286060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Paintball pistols only cost $150 to $350 (with a holster).<br>
<br>
Just sayin'</htmltext>
<tokenext>Paintball pistols only cost $ 150 to $ 350 ( with a holster ) .
Just sayin'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Paintball pistols only cost $150 to $350 (with a holster).
Just sayin'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31029096</id>
	<title>Re:Hollywood has it wrong anyway.</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1265289180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agree.  Just a little muscle spasm in my back was enough to drop me to my knees in an instant.  It's like you forget how to walk when you feel enough instant pain.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agree .
Just a little muscle spasm in my back was enough to drop me to my knees in an instant .
It 's like you forget how to walk when you feel enough instant pain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agree.
Just a little muscle spasm in my back was enough to drop me to my knees in an instant.
It's like you forget how to walk when you feel enough instant pain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026212</id>
	<title>In movies, it's a Morality lesson</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265274780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The guy who draws first is the agressor, we can't let the agressor win.<br>
<br>
That's the same reason that the guy on the roof of the saloon, aiming to shoot the someone in the back, always gets shot just as he's taking aim, and falls impressively to the street. Snipers and back-shooters are bad guys.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The guy who draws first is the agressor , we ca n't let the agressor win .
That 's the same reason that the guy on the roof of the saloon , aiming to shoot the someone in the back , always gets shot just as he 's taking aim , and falls impressively to the street .
Snipers and back-shooters are bad guys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The guy who draws first is the agressor, we can't let the agressor win.
That's the same reason that the guy on the roof of the saloon, aiming to shoot the someone in the back, always gets shot just as he's taking aim, and falls impressively to the street.
Snipers and back-shooters are bad guys.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31029118</id>
	<title>Re:Duel on main street at high noon is a MYTH.</title>
	<author>dwye</author>
	<datestamp>1265289360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; The truth is that the duel at "high noon" is a myth perpetuated by spaghetti Westerns.</p><p>Odd, I remember seeing them in Hollywood Westerns from before the start of WWII, long before the first Spaghetti Western.  They may even have occurred in the Silent Era, since many of the Hollywood tropes were invented then.</p><p>Spaghetti Westerns are those Westerns produced by European, usually Italian, film companies in the late 1950s and early 1960s (usually shooting in Central Spain, with a polyglot European cast and one or two American actors to make it easier to market in the USA).  Blaming the duel on Spaghetti Westerns is like blaming Mel Brooks and Blazing Saddles for singing cowboys in fancy gear.</p><p>Also, I would be surprised if the duel at high noon wasn't actually invented by the dime novelists who were mythologizing the West even as it was occurring, or possibly by Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show, which did the same thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The truth is that the duel at " high noon " is a myth perpetuated by spaghetti Westerns.Odd , I remember seeing them in Hollywood Westerns from before the start of WWII , long before the first Spaghetti Western .
They may even have occurred in the Silent Era , since many of the Hollywood tropes were invented then.Spaghetti Westerns are those Westerns produced by European , usually Italian , film companies in the late 1950s and early 1960s ( usually shooting in Central Spain , with a polyglot European cast and one or two American actors to make it easier to market in the USA ) .
Blaming the duel on Spaghetti Westerns is like blaming Mel Brooks and Blazing Saddles for singing cowboys in fancy gear.Also , I would be surprised if the duel at high noon was n't actually invented by the dime novelists who were mythologizing the West even as it was occurring , or possibly by Buffalo Bill 's Wild West Show , which did the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The truth is that the duel at "high noon" is a myth perpetuated by spaghetti Westerns.Odd, I remember seeing them in Hollywood Westerns from before the start of WWII, long before the first Spaghetti Western.
They may even have occurred in the Silent Era, since many of the Hollywood tropes were invented then.Spaghetti Westerns are those Westerns produced by European, usually Italian, film companies in the late 1950s and early 1960s (usually shooting in Central Spain, with a polyglot European cast and one or two American actors to make it easier to market in the USA).
Blaming the duel on Spaghetti Westerns is like blaming Mel Brooks and Blazing Saddles for singing cowboys in fancy gear.Also, I would be surprised if the duel at high noon wasn't actually invented by the dime novelists who were mythologizing the West even as it was occurring, or possibly by Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show, which did the same thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027286</id>
	<title>Morality plays</title>
	<author>redelm</author>
	<datestamp>1265279280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gee<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you don't think that a puritain morality has anything to do with it?  Whoever draws first is the aggressor and is justified in being shot by someone who was just defending themselves?<p>
Not to say there might not be other explanations, but I think the storyline is primary.  People will only pay for a story they "like".  Movies are commercial enterprises, expensive to make and requiring financial justification.  Art is secondary but the most talented producers, directors and others know how to bring art in effectively.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gee ... you do n't think that a puritain morality has anything to do with it ?
Whoever draws first is the aggressor and is justified in being shot by someone who was just defending themselves ?
Not to say there might not be other explanations , but I think the storyline is primary .
People will only pay for a story they " like " .
Movies are commercial enterprises , expensive to make and requiring financial justification .
Art is secondary but the most talented producers , directors and others know how to bring art in effectively .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gee ... you don't think that a puritain morality has anything to do with it?
Whoever draws first is the aggressor and is justified in being shot by someone who was just defending themselves?
Not to say there might not be other explanations, but I think the storyline is primary.
People will only pay for a story they "like".
Movies are commercial enterprises, expensive to make and requiring financial justification.
Art is secondary but the most talented producers, directors and others know how to bring art in effectively.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31028580</id>
	<title>Re:Unforgivable!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265286360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what happens when you read the entire article before posting.  Congratulations, sir!</p><p>Which also means the headline for this story is COMPLETELY WRONG!!!  Pretend that I went on a diatribe here about the state of slashdot editing...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And that , ladies and gentlemen , is what happens when you read the entire article before posting .
Congratulations , sir ! Which also means the headline for this story is COMPLETELY WRONG ! ! !
Pretend that I went on a diatribe here about the state of slashdot editing.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what happens when you read the entire article before posting.
Congratulations, sir!Which also means the headline for this story is COMPLETELY WRONG!!!
Pretend that I went on a diatribe here about the state of slashdot editing...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027622</id>
	<title>Re:Bad summary</title>
	<author>retchdog</author>
	<datestamp>1265281260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clearly not. They were reacting very quickly to the headline.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly not .
They were reacting very quickly to the headline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly not.
They were reacting very quickly to the headline.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31030302</id>
	<title>It's about the information</title>
	<author>recharged95</author>
	<datestamp>1265297940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Person that shoots first, sees:
<p>
a <i>still</i> scene, likely no sound too. It's 2 guys standing still at the beginning. Basically he sees <b>no</b> activity.
<br>
He has less knowledge of the situation/environment, and his reaction is controllable in the brain as it's his conscious decision to fire first...
<br>
<br>
The second person that shoots, sees:
</p><p>
a person moving, sounds, movement, the knowledge that a gun is firing at him. Basically he sees activity. As since his brain is typically set for an unconscious reaction (by anticipation), he'll response faster since he'll have more information about situation by default.
<br>
Since the 2nd person has more information of the two (he's sensing, the 1st person is not), he responds faster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Person that shoots first , sees : a still scene , likely no sound too .
It 's 2 guys standing still at the beginning .
Basically he sees no activity .
He has less knowledge of the situation/environment , and his reaction is controllable in the brain as it 's his conscious decision to fire first.. . The second person that shoots , sees : a person moving , sounds , movement , the knowledge that a gun is firing at him .
Basically he sees activity .
As since his brain is typically set for an unconscious reaction ( by anticipation ) , he 'll response faster since he 'll have more information about situation by default .
Since the 2nd person has more information of the two ( he 's sensing , the 1st person is not ) , he responds faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Person that shoots first, sees:

a still scene, likely no sound too.
It's 2 guys standing still at the beginning.
Basically he sees no activity.
He has less knowledge of the situation/environment, and his reaction is controllable in the brain as it's his conscious decision to fire first...


The second person that shoots, sees:

a person moving, sounds, movement, the knowledge that a gun is firing at him.
Basically he sees activity.
As since his brain is typically set for an unconscious reaction (by anticipation), he'll response faster since he'll have more information about situation by default.
Since the 2nd person has more information of the two (he's sensing, the 1st person is not), he responds faster.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027342</id>
	<title>Better counter-example - Liberty Valance</title>
	<author>tomhath</author>
	<datestamp>1265279520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is a better example of the real reason - it's the bad guy who gets shot.

Lee Marvin (bad guy of course) baits James Stewart (good guy of course) into a gunfight. As Stewart draws his gun, knowing Marvin would win the gunfight, John Wayne (hero of course) shoots Marvin from across the street</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is a better example of the real reason - it 's the bad guy who gets shot .
Lee Marvin ( bad guy of course ) baits James Stewart ( good guy of course ) into a gunfight .
As Stewart draws his gun , knowing Marvin would win the gunfight , John Wayne ( hero of course ) shoots Marvin from across the street</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is a better example of the real reason - it's the bad guy who gets shot.
Lee Marvin (bad guy of course) baits James Stewart (good guy of course) into a gunfight.
As Stewart draws his gun, knowing Marvin would win the gunfight, John Wayne (hero of course) shoots Marvin from across the street</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027168</id>
	<title>Re:Unforgivable!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265278740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shut up George</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shut up George</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shut up George</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026838</id>
	<title>Duel on main street at high noon is a MYTH.</title>
	<author>SteveMurphy</author>
	<datestamp>1265277300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The truth is that the duel at "high noon" is a myth perpetuated by spaghetti Westerns. An actual quick draw expert can shoot you several times and re-holster his weapon before you even have <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqABkG1JpHM" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">time to blink</a> [youtube.com]. It only takes about 20 milliseconds for them to get a shot off, while human reflex time is typically about 150-300 milliseconds. A real gun slinger could kill you even if you had already drawn your weapon and had your finger on the trigger. With such a person facing off on main street would be laughable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The truth is that the duel at " high noon " is a myth perpetuated by spaghetti Westerns .
An actual quick draw expert can shoot you several times and re-holster his weapon before you even have time to blink [ youtube.com ] .
It only takes about 20 milliseconds for them to get a shot off , while human reflex time is typically about 150-300 milliseconds .
A real gun slinger could kill you even if you had already drawn your weapon and had your finger on the trigger .
With such a person facing off on main street would be laughable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The truth is that the duel at "high noon" is a myth perpetuated by spaghetti Westerns.
An actual quick draw expert can shoot you several times and re-holster his weapon before you even have time to blink [youtube.com].
It only takes about 20 milliseconds for them to get a shot off, while human reflex time is typically about 150-300 milliseconds.
A real gun slinger could kill you even if you had already drawn your weapon and had your finger on the trigger.
With such a person facing off on main street would be laughable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31038904</id>
	<title>Re:Having relatives in law enforcement</title>
	<author>Cederic</author>
	<datestamp>1265362200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In short, a cop gains no tactical or situational advantage by drawing his weapon but not firing. In real life, the movie standoff doesn't end with the criminal laying down his gun; it usually ends up much worse</p></div><p>If a highly trained (in the UK it's pretty much certain any firearms officer has had some serious training) man is pointing a gun at you, yelling at you to drop your weapon and/or sit down and/or some other relatively uncomplicated instruction, you can<br>- ignore him, taking the risk he'll shoot and kill you, knowing that he's actually very capable of exactly that<br>- try and shoot him first, knowing that even if you succeed his mate will probably kill you, and that your likely best outcome is that you'll get arrested and incarcerated<br>- just do what he says, and accept that today wasn't your day</p><p>If you are faced by a policeman with no weapon drawn, you have a different set of options, a different set of outcomes and far more incentive to try something stupid.</p><p>Basically, the emotional impact and blatant threat of a drawn weapon is sufficient in itself to resolve many situations.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In short , a cop gains no tactical or situational advantage by drawing his weapon but not firing .
In real life , the movie standoff does n't end with the criminal laying down his gun ; it usually ends up much worseIf a highly trained ( in the UK it 's pretty much certain any firearms officer has had some serious training ) man is pointing a gun at you , yelling at you to drop your weapon and/or sit down and/or some other relatively uncomplicated instruction , you can- ignore him , taking the risk he 'll shoot and kill you , knowing that he 's actually very capable of exactly that- try and shoot him first , knowing that even if you succeed his mate will probably kill you , and that your likely best outcome is that you 'll get arrested and incarcerated- just do what he says , and accept that today was n't your dayIf you are faced by a policeman with no weapon drawn , you have a different set of options , a different set of outcomes and far more incentive to try something stupid.Basically , the emotional impact and blatant threat of a drawn weapon is sufficient in itself to resolve many situations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In short, a cop gains no tactical or situational advantage by drawing his weapon but not firing.
In real life, the movie standoff doesn't end with the criminal laying down his gun; it usually ends up much worseIf a highly trained (in the UK it's pretty much certain any firearms officer has had some serious training) man is pointing a gun at you, yelling at you to drop your weapon and/or sit down and/or some other relatively uncomplicated instruction, you can- ignore him, taking the risk he'll shoot and kill you, knowing that he's actually very capable of exactly that- try and shoot him first, knowing that even if you succeed his mate will probably kill you, and that your likely best outcome is that you'll get arrested and incarcerated- just do what he says, and accept that today wasn't your dayIf you are faced by a policeman with no weapon drawn, you have a different set of options, a different set of outcomes and far more incentive to try something stupid.Basically, the emotional impact and blatant threat of a drawn weapon is sufficient in itself to resolve many situations.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31030478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31118724</id>
	<title>OODA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265968380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google OODA Loop. You may react faster, but you will still be slower.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google OODA Loop .
You may react faster , but you will still be slower .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google OODA Loop.
You may react faster, but you will still be slower.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026260</id>
	<title>Surprising result</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265275020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It turns out the black hats the bad guys wear makes them easier to hit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It turns out the black hats the bad guys wear makes them easier to hit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It turns out the black hats the bad guys wear makes them easier to hit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026650</id>
	<title>eastwood movies</title>
	<author>j2020j0908</author>
	<datestamp>1265276520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's a lie. I remember 1 Eastwood flick where he drawed first and killed everyone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a lie .
I remember 1 Eastwood flick where he drawed first and killed everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a lie.
I remember 1 Eastwood flick where he drawed first and killed everyone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026800</id>
	<title>Followup: subject *thinks* other guy drew first?</title>
	<author>JSBiff</author>
	<datestamp>1265277180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems like there would be an interesting followup experiment. Arrange it so that one participant *actually* draws first, but *thinks* the other guy drew first, and see who 'wins' in those situations? Because, the experiment seems to suggest this a brain/nervous system reaction to perception, not anything based on actual objective physics or anything. If that is indeed the case, then the actual facts of the situation shouldn't matter, only that which is perceived/believed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like there would be an interesting followup experiment .
Arrange it so that one participant * actually * draws first , but * thinks * the other guy drew first , and see who 'wins ' in those situations ?
Because , the experiment seems to suggest this a brain/nervous system reaction to perception , not anything based on actual objective physics or anything .
If that is indeed the case , then the actual facts of the situation should n't matter , only that which is perceived/believed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like there would be an interesting followup experiment.
Arrange it so that one participant *actually* draws first, but *thinks* the other guy drew first, and see who 'wins' in those situations?
Because, the experiment seems to suggest this a brain/nervous system reaction to perception, not anything based on actual objective physics or anything.
If that is indeed the case, then the actual facts of the situation shouldn't matter, only that which is perceived/believed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027980</id>
	<title>The real way to shoot first.</title>
	<author>snspdaarf</author>
	<datestamp>1265283000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Oh, it's an old trick. You did it pretty well - not real well - but pretty well. You feinted with your left shoulder, getting him to go for his gun, while you were goin' for yours with your right hand at the same time. It's an old Arizona trick; but I... I have seen it used as far north as Montana."  -- Jason McCullough, "Support Your Local Sheriff"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Oh , it 's an old trick .
You did it pretty well - not real well - but pretty well .
You feinted with your left shoulder , getting him to go for his gun , while you were goin ' for yours with your right hand at the same time .
It 's an old Arizona trick ; but I... I have seen it used as far north as Montana .
" -- Jason McCullough , " Support Your Local Sheriff "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Oh, it's an old trick.
You did it pretty well - not real well - but pretty well.
You feinted with your left shoulder, getting him to go for his gun, while you were goin' for yours with your right hand at the same time.
It's an old Arizona trick; but I... I have seen it used as far north as Montana.
"  -- Jason McCullough, "Support Your Local Sheriff"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026618</id>
	<title>Re:Bad summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265276400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Did the submitter or editors read the story?</p></div><p>Your UID suggests you've been around Slashdot long enough to know the answer to that question.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did the submitter or editors read the story ? Your UID suggests you 've been around Slashdot long enough to know the answer to that question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did the submitter or editors read the story?Your UID suggests you've been around Slashdot long enough to know the answer to that question.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31028442</id>
	<title>Re:In movies, it's a Morality lesson</title>
	<author>Lunzo</author>
	<datestamp>1265285520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A counter-example: in the movie "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" the good was a sniper.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A counter-example : in the movie " The Good , the Bad and the Ugly " the good was a sniper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A counter-example: in the movie "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" the good was a sniper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027070</id>
	<title>Re:Bad summary</title>
	<author>godrik</author>
	<datestamp>1265278320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who cares ? This story was just posted to have nice cowboy Neal^W jokes!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares ?
This story was just posted to have nice cowboy Neal ^ W jokes !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares ?
This story was just posted to have nice cowboy Neal^W jokes!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026190</id>
	<title>Fast vs Accurate</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1265274660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's also an issue of fast vs accurate. Drawing your gun quickly and snapping off a shot may make a bang but your goal is to hit the mark. Taking a smidge more time to actually get a kill shot can make a big difference.<br> <br>
It also helps to have the script writer and director on your side as well as your name on the marquee...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's also an issue of fast vs accurate .
Drawing your gun quickly and snapping off a shot may make a bang but your goal is to hit the mark .
Taking a smidge more time to actually get a kill shot can make a big difference .
It also helps to have the script writer and director on your side as well as your name on the marquee.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's also an issue of fast vs accurate.
Drawing your gun quickly and snapping off a shot may make a bang but your goal is to hit the mark.
Taking a smidge more time to actually get a kill shot can make a big difference.
It also helps to have the script writer and director on your side as well as your name on the marquee...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027084</id>
	<title>Let's not forget Han Solo...</title>
	<author>seandiggity</author>
	<datestamp>1265278380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...the space cowboy who shot Greedo in self-defense<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>...the space cowboy who shot Greedo in self-defense ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the space cowboy who shot Greedo in self-defense ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026180</id>
	<title>1645 called.</title>
	<author>bigattichouse</author>
	<datestamp>1265274660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Miyamoto Musashi established this phenomenon quite well in 1645. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Book\_of\_Five\_Rings" title="wikipedia.org">Book of five rings</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>Feudal Japan called, they want their news back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Miyamoto Musashi established this phenomenon quite well in 1645 .
Book of five rings [ wikipedia.org ] .Feudal Japan called , they want their news back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Miyamoto Musashi established this phenomenon quite well in 1645.
Book of five rings [wikipedia.org].Feudal Japan called, they want their news back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31033080</id>
	<title>Re:eastwood movies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265372400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>shame it was a movie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>shame it was a movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>shame it was a movie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31029200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026510</id>
	<title>There's an obvious alternative explanation</title>
	<author>wytten</author>
	<datestamp>1265275980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Hollywood movies, the bad guy always draws first, and the bad guy always gets shot.  QED</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Hollywood movies , the bad guy always draws first , and the bad guy always gets shot .
QED</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Hollywood movies, the bad guy always draws first, and the bad guy always gets shot.
QED</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31030288</id>
	<title>Re:Corollary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265297760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try playing Counter-Strike some time.  It's not exactly real life, but it's close enough.  The Uzi has recoil, and if you spray (shoot multiple rounds in a row in a few seconds), the recoil will completely knock off your aim.  A pistol, if aimed, will hit.  You can't spray a pistol, really.</p><p>But you can aim and shoot with an Uzi, too.  Whoever aims the best wins.  Same scenario could be reversed:  Guy with 12-round clip in his pistol fires shot after shot, successively.  Other guy with Uzi aims and bursts only a couple 3 rounds.  Guy with Uzi wins.</p><p>Case closed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try playing Counter-Strike some time .
It 's not exactly real life , but it 's close enough .
The Uzi has recoil , and if you spray ( shoot multiple rounds in a row in a few seconds ) , the recoil will completely knock off your aim .
A pistol , if aimed , will hit .
You ca n't spray a pistol , really.But you can aim and shoot with an Uzi , too .
Whoever aims the best wins .
Same scenario could be reversed : Guy with 12-round clip in his pistol fires shot after shot , successively .
Other guy with Uzi aims and bursts only a couple 3 rounds .
Guy with Uzi wins.Case closed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try playing Counter-Strike some time.
It's not exactly real life, but it's close enough.
The Uzi has recoil, and if you spray (shoot multiple rounds in a row in a few seconds), the recoil will completely knock off your aim.
A pistol, if aimed, will hit.
You can't spray a pistol, really.But you can aim and shoot with an Uzi, too.
Whoever aims the best wins.
Same scenario could be reversed:  Guy with 12-round clip in his pistol fires shot after shot, successively.
Other guy with Uzi aims and bursts only a couple 3 rounds.
Guy with Uzi wins.Case closed?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026492</id>
	<title>Re:In movies, it's a Morality lesson</title>
	<author>Rennt</author>
	<datestamp>1265275920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its more of a trope then a lesson - the audience already knows that bad guys shoot first. If you go breaking conventions like that you better have a damn good reason, or you're going to loose the audience.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its more of a trope then a lesson - the audience already knows that bad guys shoot first .
If you go breaking conventions like that you better have a damn good reason , or you 're going to loose the audience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its more of a trope then a lesson - the audience already knows that bad guys shoot first.
If you go breaking conventions like that you better have a damn good reason, or you're going to loose the audience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31030642</id>
	<title>Re:Unforgivable!</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1265301060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The research team believes that Bohr, the man who conducted the first experiments on the subject and won every time when drawing second, was simply much better than his opponent.</i></p><p>Pff, so this supposed "research" was really just a chance for Mr. Bohr to show off to his friend!</p><p>Or he compromised his results with confirmation bias by not changing the scenario to see if the same result occurred when he shot first.</p><p>Or both, because this "research" was actually a bet between Bohr and his friend after several rounds of shots and twenty bucks was on the line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The research team believes that Bohr , the man who conducted the first experiments on the subject and won every time when drawing second , was simply much better than his opponent.Pff , so this supposed " research " was really just a chance for Mr. Bohr to show off to his friend ! Or he compromised his results with confirmation bias by not changing the scenario to see if the same result occurred when he shot first.Or both , because this " research " was actually a bet between Bohr and his friend after several rounds of shots and twenty bucks was on the line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The research team believes that Bohr, the man who conducted the first experiments on the subject and won every time when drawing second, was simply much better than his opponent.Pff, so this supposed "research" was really just a chance for Mr. Bohr to show off to his friend!Or he compromised his results with confirmation bias by not changing the scenario to see if the same result occurred when he shot first.Or both, because this "research" was actually a bet between Bohr and his friend after several rounds of shots and twenty bucks was on the line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026048</id>
	<title>First Post!!! DAMN!!!!! I am not!</title>
	<author>viraltus</author>
	<datestamp>1265274180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just like the article predicted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like the article predicted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like the article predicted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31030478</id>
	<title>Having relatives in law enforcement</title>
	<author>gillbates</author>
	<datestamp>1265299740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I have cop relatives.  On more than one occasion, I've heard said that police are trained not to draw their weapon unless they intend to use it.
</p><p>
And when you think about it, it makes little sense for an officer to draw a gun and make an armed criminal *more* nervous.  That is, unless he intends to put a bullet in the criminal.
</p><p>
Think about the typical cop-criminal standoff in the movies.  Both point their guns at the other, but no one fires.  Why?
</p><ol>
<li>The cop can't arbitrarily shoot someone, so he can't fire until fired upon (*according to cop-movie semantics.)</li>
<li>The criminal doesn't want to get shot by the cop.  But since the cop hasn't fired yet, the criminal (who is pre-disposed to shoot cops) can now take more time to aim and get a shot that will most likely be lethal instantaneously.</li>
<li>Having both drawn their weapons, the cop cannot de-escalate the situation without the criminal's consent; the cop is betting the criminal will somehow be more easily persuaded to relinquish his weapon with a gun pointed at him.</li>
<li>The criminal now holds all the cards.  The cop - by not firing - has signaled to the criminal that he can take his time, aim well, and squeeze off the opening round.</li>
<li>The police officer will not even hear the criminal's weapon fire before being struck by the bullet.</li>
</ol><p>
In short, a cop gains no tactical or situational advantage by drawing his weapon but not firing.  In real life, the movie standoff doesn't end with the criminal laying down his gun; it usually ends up much worse.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have cop relatives .
On more than one occasion , I 've heard said that police are trained not to draw their weapon unless they intend to use it .
And when you think about it , it makes little sense for an officer to draw a gun and make an armed criminal * more * nervous .
That is , unless he intends to put a bullet in the criminal .
Think about the typical cop-criminal standoff in the movies .
Both point their guns at the other , but no one fires .
Why ? The cop ca n't arbitrarily shoot someone , so he ca n't fire until fired upon ( * according to cop-movie semantics .
) The criminal does n't want to get shot by the cop .
But since the cop has n't fired yet , the criminal ( who is pre-disposed to shoot cops ) can now take more time to aim and get a shot that will most likely be lethal instantaneously .
Having both drawn their weapons , the cop can not de-escalate the situation without the criminal 's consent ; the cop is betting the criminal will somehow be more easily persuaded to relinquish his weapon with a gun pointed at him .
The criminal now holds all the cards .
The cop - by not firing - has signaled to the criminal that he can take his time , aim well , and squeeze off the opening round .
The police officer will not even hear the criminal 's weapon fire before being struck by the bullet .
In short , a cop gains no tactical or situational advantage by drawing his weapon but not firing .
In real life , the movie standoff does n't end with the criminal laying down his gun ; it usually ends up much worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I have cop relatives.
On more than one occasion, I've heard said that police are trained not to draw their weapon unless they intend to use it.
And when you think about it, it makes little sense for an officer to draw a gun and make an armed criminal *more* nervous.
That is, unless he intends to put a bullet in the criminal.
Think about the typical cop-criminal standoff in the movies.
Both point their guns at the other, but no one fires.
Why?

The cop can't arbitrarily shoot someone, so he can't fire until fired upon (*according to cop-movie semantics.
)
The criminal doesn't want to get shot by the cop.
But since the cop hasn't fired yet, the criminal (who is pre-disposed to shoot cops) can now take more time to aim and get a shot that will most likely be lethal instantaneously.
Having both drawn their weapons, the cop cannot de-escalate the situation without the criminal's consent; the cop is betting the criminal will somehow be more easily persuaded to relinquish his weapon with a gun pointed at him.
The criminal now holds all the cards.
The cop - by not firing - has signaled to the criminal that he can take his time, aim well, and squeeze off the opening round.
The police officer will not even hear the criminal's weapon fire before being struck by the bullet.
In short, a cop gains no tactical or situational advantage by drawing his weapon but not firing.
In real life, the movie standoff doesn't end with the criminal laying down his gun; it usually ends up much worse.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026034</id>
	<title>Oblig.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265274120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Han shot first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Han shot first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Han shot first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026724</id>
	<title>Did they mix the groups?</title>
	<author>Kral\_Blbec</author>
	<datestamp>1265276820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Bohr never drew first but won every time</p></div><p>That indicates to me that the opponent is just slower by nature. It doesn't mention if they had the later test groups try both sides, but I wouldn't be surprised if they didnt.<br>For example, if I was in that test with my parents, I could be half asleep and turned the other direction when they started and I would still probably beat them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bohr never drew first but won every timeThat indicates to me that the opponent is just slower by nature .
It does n't mention if they had the later test groups try both sides , but I would n't be surprised if they didnt.For example , if I was in that test with my parents , I could be half asleep and turned the other direction when they started and I would still probably beat them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bohr never drew first but won every timeThat indicates to me that the opponent is just slower by nature.
It doesn't mention if they had the later test groups try both sides, but I wouldn't be surprised if they didnt.For example, if I was in that test with my parents, I could be half asleep and turned the other direction when they started and I would still probably beat them.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027172</id>
	<title>I shot the sherif</title>
	<author>mmsimanga</author>
	<datestamp>1265278740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but not the deputy</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but not the deputy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but not the deputy</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026590</id>
	<title>Han Shot First!</title>
	<author>DolomiteZipper</author>
	<datestamp>1265276340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Han shot first. He lived. Theory debunked.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Han shot first .
He lived .
Theory debunked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Han shot first.
He lived.
Theory debunked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026174</id>
	<title>It's a variant of "Instinctive Shooting"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265274660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Basically if you have trained and know your weapon you fire faster if you don't think about it, it's a reflex thing and I have personally experienced the accuracy portion of this, meaning; if I know my rifle I can shoot without little or no thought/concentration and I am generally more accurate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically if you have trained and know your weapon you fire faster if you do n't think about it , it 's a reflex thing and I have personally experienced the accuracy portion of this , meaning ; if I know my rifle I can shoot without little or no thought/concentration and I am generally more accurate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically if you have trained and know your weapon you fire faster if you don't think about it, it's a reflex thing and I have personally experienced the accuracy portion of this, meaning; if I know my rifle I can shoot without little or no thought/concentration and I am generally more accurate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31028168</id>
	<title>Re:Unforgivable!</title>
	<author>Quirkz</author>
	<datestamp>1265283960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>See, this is a case where even brilliant scientists can perform bad science. Didn't it ever occur to Bohr that as a control he should play both sides of the test? Seems obvious enough to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>See , this is a case where even brilliant scientists can perform bad science .
Did n't it ever occur to Bohr that as a control he should play both sides of the test ?
Seems obvious enough to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See, this is a case where even brilliant scientists can perform bad science.
Didn't it ever occur to Bohr that as a control he should play both sides of the test?
Seems obvious enough to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026286</id>
	<title>Re:The bad guy always loses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265275140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must not have seen <i>Battle Beyond The Stars</i>. Cowboy died in that movie, and he was the good guy!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must not have seen Battle Beyond The Stars .
Cowboy died in that movie , and he was the good guy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must not have seen Battle Beyond The Stars.
Cowboy died in that movie, and he was the good guy!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026312</id>
	<title>Re:Unforgivable!</title>
	<author>ViViDboarder</author>
	<datestamp>1265275200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is the opposite of what the article is saying...<br> <br>
The article says that the first person to draw will be the last one to pull the trigger, but the one reacting (drawing second after seeing the first person draw) will draw and pull the trigger quicker but they are less likely to get a hit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the opposite of what the article is saying.. . The article says that the first person to draw will be the last one to pull the trigger , but the one reacting ( drawing second after seeing the first person draw ) will draw and pull the trigger quicker but they are less likely to get a hit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the opposite of what the article is saying... 
The article says that the first person to draw will be the last one to pull the trigger, but the one reacting (drawing second after seeing the first person draw) will draw and pull the trigger quicker but they are less likely to get a hit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026448</id>
	<title>Re:Oblig.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265275740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was always the intent of George Lucas to have Luke Skywalker and Obi-Wan ride on Greedo's ship, The Manka Hunter, but Harrison Ford was cheaper than keeping famous actor Paul Blake around (who demanded more money for sitting in a rubber suit most of the day) so he decided to rewrite the script to have Han kill Greedo instead of the other way around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was always the intent of George Lucas to have Luke Skywalker and Obi-Wan ride on Greedo 's ship , The Manka Hunter , but Harrison Ford was cheaper than keeping famous actor Paul Blake around ( who demanded more money for sitting in a rubber suit most of the day ) so he decided to rewrite the script to have Han kill Greedo instead of the other way around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was always the intent of George Lucas to have Luke Skywalker and Obi-Wan ride on Greedo's ship, The Manka Hunter, but Harrison Ford was cheaper than keeping famous actor Paul Blake around (who demanded more money for sitting in a rubber suit most of the day) so he decided to rewrite the script to have Han kill Greedo instead of the other way around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31030692</id>
	<title>Simply Fucking Amazing</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1265301600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Researchers have now confirmed that people indeed move faster if they are reacting, rather than acting first."</p><p>I have no doubt they have. It couldn't have been too difficult since the fact that behavior practised to the point of automatic response produces behaviors that are faster than novel behaviors that require cognitive effort in planning and execution and in monitoring the behavior in progess has been well understood for decades, and practised in sports and warfare for centuries.</p><p>What's next from this golly-gee-whiz path of scienterrific discovery? Why, I'll bet they're going to try to tell us that such automated behaviors are carried out via processing in that wrinkly bit of brain way in back on the bottom. Yeah, that one that we know for certain is the radiator for our blood so we can keep our bodies from overheating.</p><p>It's obvious why this is called research. Because once it's discovered examined and understood, anybody can re-search for it, looking for it again and again, every time being more and more certain to be right. Us scientists call it replication, or at least testing a principle in another context. But writers who don't have to get it right or apologize for being wrong can call any result An Amazing Discovery. Is it just to sell the piece or because they're just ignorant of the subject? Probably plenty of both.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Researchers have now confirmed that people indeed move faster if they are reacting , rather than acting first .
" I have no doubt they have .
It could n't have been too difficult since the fact that behavior practised to the point of automatic response produces behaviors that are faster than novel behaviors that require cognitive effort in planning and execution and in monitoring the behavior in progess has been well understood for decades , and practised in sports and warfare for centuries.What 's next from this golly-gee-whiz path of scienterrific discovery ?
Why , I 'll bet they 're going to try to tell us that such automated behaviors are carried out via processing in that wrinkly bit of brain way in back on the bottom .
Yeah , that one that we know for certain is the radiator for our blood so we can keep our bodies from overheating.It 's obvious why this is called research .
Because once it 's discovered examined and understood , anybody can re-search for it , looking for it again and again , every time being more and more certain to be right .
Us scientists call it replication , or at least testing a principle in another context .
But writers who do n't have to get it right or apologize for being wrong can call any result An Amazing Discovery .
Is it just to sell the piece or because they 're just ignorant of the subject ?
Probably plenty of both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Researchers have now confirmed that people indeed move faster if they are reacting, rather than acting first.
"I have no doubt they have.
It couldn't have been too difficult since the fact that behavior practised to the point of automatic response produces behaviors that are faster than novel behaviors that require cognitive effort in planning and execution and in monitoring the behavior in progess has been well understood for decades, and practised in sports and warfare for centuries.What's next from this golly-gee-whiz path of scienterrific discovery?
Why, I'll bet they're going to try to tell us that such automated behaviors are carried out via processing in that wrinkly bit of brain way in back on the bottom.
Yeah, that one that we know for certain is the radiator for our blood so we can keep our bodies from overheating.It's obvious why this is called research.
Because once it's discovered examined and understood, anybody can re-search for it, looking for it again and again, every time being more and more certain to be right.
Us scientists call it replication, or at least testing a principle in another context.
But writers who don't have to get it right or apologize for being wrong can call any result An Amazing Discovery.
Is it just to sell the piece or because they're just ignorant of the subject?
Probably plenty of both.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027516</id>
	<title>Well, ...</title>
	<author>Black Parrot</author>
	<datestamp>1265280540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That settles the Greedo thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That settles the Greedo thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That settles the Greedo thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31028468</id>
	<title>Re:Unforgivable!</title>
	<author>deanoaz</author>
	<datestamp>1265285760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That explains why every week on Gunsmoke for 20 or so years I was sure I heard a shot BEFORE Dillon completed his draw and fired in the opening sequence, and yet the other guy went down every time!</htmltext>
<tokenext>That explains why every week on Gunsmoke for 20 or so years I was sure I heard a shot BEFORE Dillon completed his draw and fired in the opening sequence , and yet the other guy went down every time !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That explains why every week on Gunsmoke for 20 or so years I was sure I heard a shot BEFORE Dillon completed his draw and fired in the opening sequence, and yet the other guy went down every time!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027082</id>
	<title>Possible bias against initiator.</title>
	<author>bareman</author>
	<datestamp>1265278380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the study:</p><p>"participants were forced to wait a variable, non-signalled delay before initiating the movement. If participants released the home key too early, a tone sounded and the trial was aborted."</p><p>Couldn't it be that initiators were conditioned to hesitate because going too early was punished?</p><p>I dunno..</p><p>Of course, in my Kendo class the one who tried to strike first was usually the one that lost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the study : " participants were forced to wait a variable , non-signalled delay before initiating the movement .
If participants released the home key too early , a tone sounded and the trial was aborted .
" Could n't it be that initiators were conditioned to hesitate because going too early was punished ? I dunno..Of course , in my Kendo class the one who tried to strike first was usually the one that lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the study:"participants were forced to wait a variable, non-signalled delay before initiating the movement.
If participants released the home key too early, a tone sounded and the trial was aborted.
"Couldn't it be that initiators were conditioned to hesitate because going too early was punished?I dunno..Of course, in my Kendo class the one who tried to strike first was usually the one that lost.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31028602</id>
	<title>Re:Corollary</title>
	<author>PaganRitual</author>
	<datestamp>1265286480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And if they've got a bazooka, you always run toward, never away.</p><p>- E. Izzard</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And if they 've got a bazooka , you always run toward , never away.- E. Izzard</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if they've got a bazooka, you always run toward, never away.- E. Izzard</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027640</id>
	<title>Well documentated already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265281380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This concept of the second party reacting faster is pretty well documented in martial arts circles. When I was into karate I remember it being pointed out time and again that a relaxed defender almost always reacts faster than the attacker. Probably because the attacker is more aggressive and more tense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This concept of the second party reacting faster is pretty well documented in martial arts circles .
When I was into karate I remember it being pointed out time and again that a relaxed defender almost always reacts faster than the attacker .
Probably because the attacker is more aggressive and more tense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This concept of the second party reacting faster is pretty well documented in martial arts circles.
When I was into karate I remember it being pointed out time and again that a relaxed defender almost always reacts faster than the attacker.
Probably because the attacker is more aggressive and more tense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31033080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31029200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31029096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31028580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31028410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31029090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31031252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31038904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31030478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31034188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31031800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31030642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31028532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31030328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31028808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31030288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31029508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31029154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31028468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31029074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31028168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31028602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31028442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31028150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31029118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31032658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_1915253_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_1915253.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026202
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_1915253.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027082
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_1915253.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31030288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31028602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31032658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31029074
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_1915253.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026286
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026308
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_1915253.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026492
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31028808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31028442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31031800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31028410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_1915253.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026130
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_1915253.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026114
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_1915253.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31029118
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_1915253.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31029200
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31033080
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_1915253.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027444
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_1915253.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026590
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_1915253.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026410
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31030478
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31038904
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026676
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027242
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31029508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31031252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_1915253.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026424
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31029090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026448
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_1915253.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026290
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31034188
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027168
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31029154
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31028150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026312
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026666
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31030328
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027566
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31028580
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31028168
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31030642
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31028468
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_1915253.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027640
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_1915253.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026902
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027680
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31029096
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_1915253.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026174
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_1915253.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31028532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027442
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_1915253.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026036
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_1915253.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_1915253.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31027286
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_1915253.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_1915253.31026180
</commentlist>
</conversation>
