<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_07_2114253</id>
	<title>Push To End Online Gambling Ban Gains Steam</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1265548080000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>The Washington Post updates a story we discussed <a href="//politics.slashdot.org/story/09/05/26/2034259/A-Push-To-End-the-Online-Gambling-Ban">last spring</a> about a push in the Democratic-controlled congress to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/06/AR2010020602190.html">legalize some forms of Internet gambling in the US</a>. <i>"Partly bankrolled by offshore gambling companies, the campaign has already persuaded the Obama administration to <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/story/09/11/28/1454220/Government-Delays-New-Ban-On-Internet-Gambling">delay enforcement</a> of a 2006 law cracking down on Internet wagers. ... The federal government, which rarely prosecutes online gambling, would net billions of dollars in tax and licensing revenue if it were legalized, proponents say. ... The outlook on Capitol Hill, however, is uncertain given a slate of unfinished business... [and] nervousness among Democrats about November midterm challenges. ... [A politically conservative poker player said] 'There's a part of the party that always believes this isn't something people should do. But I think it behooves the party to be a little more broad-minded on this issue.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Washington Post updates a story we discussed last spring about a push in the Democratic-controlled congress to legalize some forms of Internet gambling in the US .
" Partly bankrolled by offshore gambling companies , the campaign has already persuaded the Obama administration to delay enforcement of a 2006 law cracking down on Internet wagers .
... The federal government , which rarely prosecutes online gambling , would net billions of dollars in tax and licensing revenue if it were legalized , proponents say .
... The outlook on Capitol Hill , however , is uncertain given a slate of unfinished business... [ and ] nervousness among Democrats about November midterm challenges .
... [ A politically conservative poker player said ] 'There 's a part of the party that always believes this is n't something people should do .
But I think it behooves the party to be a little more broad-minded on this issue .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Washington Post updates a story we discussed last spring about a push in the Democratic-controlled congress to legalize some forms of Internet gambling in the US.
"Partly bankrolled by offshore gambling companies, the campaign has already persuaded the Obama administration to delay enforcement of a 2006 law cracking down on Internet wagers.
... The federal government, which rarely prosecutes online gambling, would net billions of dollars in tax and licensing revenue if it were legalized, proponents say.
... The outlook on Capitol Hill, however, is uncertain given a slate of unfinished business... [and] nervousness among Democrats about November midterm challenges.
... [A politically conservative poker player said] 'There's a part of the party that always believes this isn't something people should do.
But I think it behooves the party to be a little more broad-minded on this issue.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060732</id>
	<title>Re:Legalizing it just moves it overseas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265646180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's like if we legalized pot smoking in K-12 school.</i></p><p>Ironically, it's easier for a twelve year old to buy pot than it is for me to. As an adult, I could be the Secret Police ("undercover"), but not a twelve year old.</p><p>You can buy pot in any high school, but not beer. That should tell people something about their misguided drug laws, which cause the very problems they purport to solve. The same goes for gambling, prostitution, and other victimless crimes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like if we legalized pot smoking in K-12 school.Ironically , it 's easier for a twelve year old to buy pot than it is for me to .
As an adult , I could be the Secret Police ( " undercover " ) , but not a twelve year old.You can buy pot in any high school , but not beer .
That should tell people something about their misguided drug laws , which cause the very problems they purport to solve .
The same goes for gambling , prostitution , and other victimless crimes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's like if we legalized pot smoking in K-12 school.Ironically, it's easier for a twelve year old to buy pot than it is for me to.
As an adult, I could be the Secret Police ("undercover"), but not a twelve year old.You can buy pot in any high school, but not beer.
That should tell people something about their misguided drug laws, which cause the very problems they purport to solve.
The same goes for gambling, prostitution, and other victimless crimes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060300</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1265642820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Better for them to go broke online, than run up a debt with a local bookie who'll have their legs broken if they don't pay up.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Better for them to go broke online , than run up a debt with a local bookie who 'll have their legs broken if they do n't pay up.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better for them to go broke online, than run up a debt with a local bookie who'll have their legs broken if they don't pay up.-jcr</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31063540</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1265660160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>thing is that the market is (in theory) not rigged to favor one party, the casino (or whatever) that one is frequenting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>thing is that the market is ( in theory ) not rigged to favor one party , the casino ( or whatever ) that one is frequenting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thing is that the market is (in theory) not rigged to favor one party, the casino (or whatever) that one is frequenting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31061330</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>ae1294</author>
	<datestamp>1265649600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's harder to regulate, and easier for people to get addicted and gamble away all their assets at home.</p></div><p>Are you these people's mommy? Freedom means being able to fuck yourself...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's harder to regulate , and easier for people to get addicted and gamble away all their assets at home.Are you these people 's mommy ?
Freedom means being able to fuck yourself.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's harder to regulate, and easier for people to get addicted and gamble away all their assets at home.Are you these people's mommy?
Freedom means being able to fuck yourself...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059964</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1265640420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Online gambling is no more difficult to regulate than brick-and-mortar casinos. If it were, you wouldn't have sports books and race tracks across the country taking wagers from people who are not onsite. Allowing the same thing to happen from someone's home is just a difference of degree, not of kind.</p><p>2) By making it legal, you make it possible to enforce monitoring of behaviors. Since players in the US would have to provide their SSNs for tax purposes, a central database of players could be maintained by the government (it would pretty much have to exist, again for tax purposes). That same database could be used to spot problem gamblers and steer them towards help. (Note that I personally am against this idea, but recognize it's inevitability.)</p><p>3) There is no third point.</p><p>4) I second the call for unbanning gambling in more areas. I live in North Texas, and the police in most of the towns here spend way, way too much time raiding private poker rooms, when they should be focusing on crimes with actual victims (if you voluntarily take part in something, by definition you cannot be a victim).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Online gambling is no more difficult to regulate than brick-and-mortar casinos .
If it were , you would n't have sports books and race tracks across the country taking wagers from people who are not onsite .
Allowing the same thing to happen from someone 's home is just a difference of degree , not of kind.2 ) By making it legal , you make it possible to enforce monitoring of behaviors .
Since players in the US would have to provide their SSNs for tax purposes , a central database of players could be maintained by the government ( it would pretty much have to exist , again for tax purposes ) .
That same database could be used to spot problem gamblers and steer them towards help .
( Note that I personally am against this idea , but recognize it 's inevitability .
) 3 ) There is no third point.4 ) I second the call for unbanning gambling in more areas .
I live in North Texas , and the police in most of the towns here spend way , way too much time raiding private poker rooms , when they should be focusing on crimes with actual victims ( if you voluntarily take part in something , by definition you can not be a victim ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Online gambling is no more difficult to regulate than brick-and-mortar casinos.
If it were, you wouldn't have sports books and race tracks across the country taking wagers from people who are not onsite.
Allowing the same thing to happen from someone's home is just a difference of degree, not of kind.2) By making it legal, you make it possible to enforce monitoring of behaviors.
Since players in the US would have to provide their SSNs for tax purposes, a central database of players could be maintained by the government (it would pretty much have to exist, again for tax purposes).
That same database could be used to spot problem gamblers and steer them towards help.
(Note that I personally am against this idea, but recognize it's inevitability.
)3) There is no third point.4) I second the call for unbanning gambling in more areas.
I live in North Texas, and the police in most of the towns here spend way, way too much time raiding private poker rooms, when they should be focusing on crimes with actual victims (if you voluntarily take part in something, by definition you cannot be a victim).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060826</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1265646840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We should also ban drinking alcohol at home. After all there's no bartender to stop serving you when you have had enough.</p><p>And we should ban trading stocks from home. Heck, they let you buy on margin something no gambling site I know about does.</p><p>And don't get me started on those currency trading sites - have you seen the margins they essentially require.</p><p>In the case of gambling it is much better that our problem gamblers end up at unregulated (by the US) online casinos run out of tax haven countries (read very easy book keeping rules). With all the revenue staying out of the country and none of it being declared to the IRS or under their jurisdiction. Or is creating a China style "Great Firewall of the United States" part of your preference?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We should also ban drinking alcohol at home .
After all there 's no bartender to stop serving you when you have had enough.And we should ban trading stocks from home .
Heck , they let you buy on margin something no gambling site I know about does.And do n't get me started on those currency trading sites - have you seen the margins they essentially require.In the case of gambling it is much better that our problem gamblers end up at unregulated ( by the US ) online casinos run out of tax haven countries ( read very easy book keeping rules ) .
With all the revenue staying out of the country and none of it being declared to the IRS or under their jurisdiction .
Or is creating a China style " Great Firewall of the United States " part of your preference ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should also ban drinking alcohol at home.
After all there's no bartender to stop serving you when you have had enough.And we should ban trading stocks from home.
Heck, they let you buy on margin something no gambling site I know about does.And don't get me started on those currency trading sites - have you seen the margins they essentially require.In the case of gambling it is much better that our problem gamblers end up at unregulated (by the US) online casinos run out of tax haven countries (read very easy book keeping rules).
With all the revenue staying out of the country and none of it being declared to the IRS or under their jurisdiction.
Or is creating a China style "Great Firewall of the United States" part of your preference?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31062152</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265653440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bullshit.</p><p>Simple fact is, if I want to transfer $20 to an online account to gamble and play around with, I should be able to. No amount of regulation or what people think I should be able to do with my money and my time should be stopping me from doing that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit.Simple fact is , if I want to transfer $ 20 to an online account to gamble and play around with , I should be able to .
No amount of regulation or what people think I should be able to do with my money and my time should be stopping me from doing that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit.Simple fact is, if I want to transfer $20 to an online account to gamble and play around with, I should be able to.
No amount of regulation or what people think I should be able to do with my money and my time should be stopping me from doing that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31062818</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>cayenne8</author>
	<datestamp>1265656800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"...easier for people to get addicted and gamble away all their assets at home."</i> <p>
And it is the Federal Govt's mandate to prevent this...? </p><p>
[Goes to get copy of Constitution to look for this enumerated power the Feds have concerning this...]</p><p>
Seriously, part of being free...is being free to fsck up...to fail to make bad decisions. As a grown, adult, should I be deprived of an adult activity that I am perfectly able to control, afford and enjoy just because Billy-bob over there can't keep from betting his whole life savings? </p><p>
I'm sorry, I just don't believe the government is supposed to be there to save you from yourself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...easier for people to get addicted and gamble away all their assets at home .
" And it is the Federal Govt 's mandate to prevent this... ?
[ Goes to get copy of Constitution to look for this enumerated power the Feds have concerning this... ] Seriously , part of being free...is being free to fsck up...to fail to make bad decisions .
As a grown , adult , should I be deprived of an adult activity that I am perfectly able to control , afford and enjoy just because Billy-bob over there ca n't keep from betting his whole life savings ?
I 'm sorry , I just do n't believe the government is supposed to be there to save you from yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...easier for people to get addicted and gamble away all their assets at home.
" 
And it is the Federal Govt's mandate to prevent this...?
[Goes to get copy of Constitution to look for this enumerated power the Feds have concerning this...]
Seriously, part of being free...is being free to fsck up...to fail to make bad decisions.
As a grown, adult, should I be deprived of an adult activity that I am perfectly able to control, afford and enjoy just because Billy-bob over there can't keep from betting his whole life savings?
I'm sorry, I just don't believe the government is supposed to be there to save you from yourself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060014</id>
	<title>Re:Behoove?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265640840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But I think it behooves the party to be a little more broad-minded on this issue</i></p><p>You need some more coffee, there's nothing whatever wrong with tha sentence, except maybe the dash between "broad" and "minded".</p><p>I'm broad-minded; my mind is always on broads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But I think it behooves the party to be a little more broad-minded on this issueYou need some more coffee , there 's nothing whatever wrong with tha sentence , except maybe the dash between " broad " and " minded " .I 'm broad-minded ; my mind is always on broads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I think it behooves the party to be a little more broad-minded on this issueYou need some more coffee, there's nothing whatever wrong with tha sentence, except maybe the dash between "broad" and "minded".I'm broad-minded; my mind is always on broads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059920</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265639880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's harder to regulate, and easier for people to get addicted and gamble away all their assets at home.</p></div><p>

They're going to lose it one way or another. If they're true gambling addicts, they'd have no problems either road-tripping it out to a reservation casino or flying out to Vegas. In any case, their own ruination is their own business - it's not the G-man's business to step in and say they can't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's harder to regulate , and easier for people to get addicted and gamble away all their assets at home .
They 're going to lose it one way or another .
If they 're true gambling addicts , they 'd have no problems either road-tripping it out to a reservation casino or flying out to Vegas .
In any case , their own ruination is their own business - it 's not the G-man 's business to step in and say they ca n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's harder to regulate, and easier for people to get addicted and gamble away all their assets at home.
They're going to lose it one way or another.
If they're true gambling addicts, they'd have no problems either road-tripping it out to a reservation casino or flying out to Vegas.
In any case, their own ruination is their own business - it's not the G-man's business to step in and say they can't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31061112</id>
	<title>This ban is just giveing Antigua more free us IP a</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265648520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This ban is just giving Antigua more free us IP and the WTO will not wait forever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This ban is just giving Antigua more free us IP and the WTO will not wait forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This ban is just giving Antigua more free us IP and the WTO will not wait forever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31061454</id>
	<title>Oldest protectionist trick in the book</title>
	<author>xcut</author>
	<datestamp>1265650080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, let's see. The US wiped billions of the share price of Partygaming (registered in Gibraltar), the most successful online poker company, almost overnight when it, effectively, outlawed credit card payments for internet gambling.
<p>
What are the chances that the law is now repealed, and "carefully regulated US companies" will be able to provide internet gambling? It's nothing but good old protectionism at work, we shall see..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , let 's see .
The US wiped billions of the share price of Partygaming ( registered in Gibraltar ) , the most successful online poker company , almost overnight when it , effectively , outlawed credit card payments for internet gambling .
What are the chances that the law is now repealed , and " carefully regulated US companies " will be able to provide internet gambling ?
It 's nothing but good old protectionism at work , we shall see. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, let's see.
The US wiped billions of the share price of Partygaming (registered in Gibraltar), the most successful online poker company, almost overnight when it, effectively, outlawed credit card payments for internet gambling.
What are the chances that the law is now repealed, and "carefully regulated US companies" will be able to provide internet gambling?
It's nothing but good old protectionism at work, we shall see..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31063762</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1265661360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't need to actually ban casinos to "ban" gambling, imprison anyone<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,etc All you need to do is declare that any debt accrued by playing in a casino is not legally considered a debt - so casino cannot legally force gamblers to pay (and if they resort to illegal means, well, that's easily countered - especially so long as betting itself isn't illegal, so the gambler doesn't have to "rat himself put" by going to police).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't need to actually ban casinos to " ban " gambling , imprison anyone ,etc All you need to do is declare that any debt accrued by playing in a casino is not legally considered a debt - so casino can not legally force gamblers to pay ( and if they resort to illegal means , well , that 's easily countered - especially so long as betting itself is n't illegal , so the gambler does n't have to " rat himself put " by going to police ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't need to actually ban casinos to "ban" gambling, imprison anyone ,etc All you need to do is declare that any debt accrued by playing in a casino is not legally considered a debt - so casino cannot legally force gamblers to pay (and if they resort to illegal means, well, that's easily countered - especially so long as betting itself isn't illegal, so the gambler doesn't have to "rat himself put" by going to police).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059874</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1265639340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>..and creates lots of jobs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>..and creates lots of jobs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..and creates lots of jobs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060390</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>BadBlood</author>
	<datestamp>1265643600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It seems like poker, played against other RL opponents, would be outside the bounds of this, although there's no guarantee that you won't be stuck at a table with a bunch of other people colluding to take your money (or one person playing several seats).</p></div><p>No guarantee, but there are plenty of safeguards.  The two biggest online poker sites, PokerStars and Full Tilt, each take colluding very seriously and if a player suspects something, they are encouraged to report it.  With respect to one person playing several seats, there are also ways to detect and prevent that too.  The above two risks you mention are very minimal and not really something to worry about at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems like poker , played against other RL opponents , would be outside the bounds of this , although there 's no guarantee that you wo n't be stuck at a table with a bunch of other people colluding to take your money ( or one person playing several seats ) .No guarantee , but there are plenty of safeguards .
The two biggest online poker sites , PokerStars and Full Tilt , each take colluding very seriously and if a player suspects something , they are encouraged to report it .
With respect to one person playing several seats , there are also ways to detect and prevent that too .
The above two risks you mention are very minimal and not really something to worry about at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems like poker, played against other RL opponents, would be outside the bounds of this, although there's no guarantee that you won't be stuck at a table with a bunch of other people colluding to take your money (or one person playing several seats).No guarantee, but there are plenty of safeguards.
The two biggest online poker sites, PokerStars and Full Tilt, each take colluding very seriously and if a player suspects something, they are encouraged to report it.
With respect to one person playing several seats, there are also ways to detect and prevent that too.
The above two risks you mention are very minimal and not really something to worry about at all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059928</id>
	<title>foreign corporations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265639940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Partly bankrolled by offshore gambling companies, the campaign has already persuaded the Obama administration to delay enforcement of a 2006 law cracking down on Internet wagers</p></div><p>But President Obama said in his State of the Union speech that political influence from foreign corporations was a bad thing. And yet his own administration is open to their influence, after all? Was he just lying in his speech? 'Cause I would be shocked, shocked!, to find out that was the case.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Partly bankrolled by offshore gambling companies , the campaign has already persuaded the Obama administration to delay enforcement of a 2006 law cracking down on Internet wagersBut President Obama said in his State of the Union speech that political influence from foreign corporations was a bad thing .
And yet his own administration is open to their influence , after all ?
Was he just lying in his speech ?
'Cause I would be shocked , shocked ! , to find out that was the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Partly bankrolled by offshore gambling companies, the campaign has already persuaded the Obama administration to delay enforcement of a 2006 law cracking down on Internet wagersBut President Obama said in his State of the Union speech that political influence from foreign corporations was a bad thing.
And yet his own administration is open to their influence, after all?
Was he just lying in his speech?
'Cause I would be shocked, shocked!, to find out that was the case.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31064494</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265621580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and if Obama legalised recreational drugs he'd be able to tax them and make a massive windfall too but that won't happen because drugs destroy lives, just like gambling. deal with it.</p><p>The representatives of the people have voted on this issue in 2006.</p><p>How dare Obama interfere with this law just to stick his grubby snout in the taxation feed trough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and if Obama legalised recreational drugs he 'd be able to tax them and make a massive windfall too but that wo n't happen because drugs destroy lives , just like gambling .
deal with it.The representatives of the people have voted on this issue in 2006.How dare Obama interfere with this law just to stick his grubby snout in the taxation feed trough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and if Obama legalised recreational drugs he'd be able to tax them and make a massive windfall too but that won't happen because drugs destroy lives, just like gambling.
deal with it.The representatives of the people have voted on this issue in 2006.How dare Obama interfere with this law just to stick his grubby snout in the taxation feed trough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059918</id>
	<title>Re:At UK sites</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265639880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll put &pound;10,000 on yes, and &pound;50,000 on no, please.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll put   10,000 on yes , and   50,000 on no , please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll put £10,000 on yes, and £50,000 on no, please.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31064788</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265622900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your logic is flawed.</p><p>Since you think the individual is "all responsible" do you also advocate:</p><p>* legalise all hard &amp; soft drugs<br>* legalise suicide<br>* legalise tattooing on under 18's</p><p>Some things need to be regulated because they hurt society in general.  Sure there'll be a few shills arguing that people are responsible for themselves but those people have probably never pulled a poker addict's limp dead baby from a car parked in 50 deg C heat in a casino parking lot.  Or an online gamblers dead baby from the cot in which it starved to death with broken legs while she spent 4 straight days chasing the high of a win.</p><p>Gambling can destroy lives in a way that no other vice can, it can take your total fortune no matter how big and turn it into zero in under 10 seconds, and the odds are STACKED against you.  People too dumb to understand this need guidance, not self serving fake concern for civil rights by the parasites running online gambling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your logic is flawed.Since you think the individual is " all responsible " do you also advocate : * legalise all hard &amp; soft drugs * legalise suicide * legalise tattooing on under 18'sSome things need to be regulated because they hurt society in general .
Sure there 'll be a few shills arguing that people are responsible for themselves but those people have probably never pulled a poker addict 's limp dead baby from a car parked in 50 deg C heat in a casino parking lot .
Or an online gamblers dead baby from the cot in which it starved to death with broken legs while she spent 4 straight days chasing the high of a win.Gambling can destroy lives in a way that no other vice can , it can take your total fortune no matter how big and turn it into zero in under 10 seconds , and the odds are STACKED against you .
People too dumb to understand this need guidance , not self serving fake concern for civil rights by the parasites running online gambling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your logic is flawed.Since you think the individual is "all responsible" do you also advocate:* legalise all hard &amp; soft drugs* legalise suicide* legalise tattooing on under 18'sSome things need to be regulated because they hurt society in general.
Sure there'll be a few shills arguing that people are responsible for themselves but those people have probably never pulled a poker addict's limp dead baby from a car parked in 50 deg C heat in a casino parking lot.
Or an online gamblers dead baby from the cot in which it starved to death with broken legs while she spent 4 straight days chasing the high of a win.Gambling can destroy lives in a way that no other vice can, it can take your total fortune no matter how big and turn it into zero in under 10 seconds, and the odds are STACKED against you.
People too dumb to understand this need guidance, not self serving fake concern for civil rights by the parasites running online gambling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060346</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>Shakrai</author>
	<datestamp>1265643300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>you also don't have the demotivating factor of Vinnie showing up to break your kneecaps when you don't pay up.</p></div><p>Yeah, but at least Vinnie can't get Uncle Sam to bail him out when he makes a series of stupid decisions and runs his business into the ground.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>you also do n't have the demotivating factor of Vinnie showing up to break your kneecaps when you do n't pay up.Yeah , but at least Vinnie ca n't get Uncle Sam to bail him out when he makes a series of stupid decisions and runs his business into the ground .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you also don't have the demotivating factor of Vinnie showing up to break your kneecaps when you don't pay up.Yeah, but at least Vinnie can't get Uncle Sam to bail him out when he makes a series of stupid decisions and runs his business into the ground.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060996</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265647980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Until I no longer have to fund health care for people who have no willpower at McDonalds, they are hurting me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until I no longer have to fund health care for people who have no willpower at McDonalds , they are hurting me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until I no longer have to fund health care for people who have no willpower at McDonalds, they are hurting me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31061150</id>
	<title>Re:Legalizing it just moves it overseas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265648640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you make online gambling lawful, it just gives the online casinos incentive to go overseas to avoid paying any tax whatsoever.</p></div><p>What? who said they couldn't make it legal for U.S. based companies and illegal for offshore ones?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you make online gambling lawful , it just gives the online casinos incentive to go overseas to avoid paying any tax whatsoever.What ?
who said they could n't make it legal for U.S. based companies and illegal for offshore ones ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you make online gambling lawful, it just gives the online casinos incentive to go overseas to avoid paying any tax whatsoever.What?
who said they couldn't make it legal for U.S. based companies and illegal for offshore ones?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060116</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265641380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> It's harder to regulate, and easier for people to get addicted and gamble away all their assets at home.</p></div><p>
You can not legislate away stupidity. The stupid will always innovate. On the other hand, if you believe that gambling addiction is a disease... well you certainly can't legislate away disease either.
</p><p>
Finally if you think the way to go is banning an activity that a small portion of the populace <i> <b>may</b> </i> have a problem with, so that the larger populace as a whole who find enjoyment in the activity are locked out of said activity, please let me know when you run for office so I can go out of my way to help someone else get elected...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's harder to regulate , and easier for people to get addicted and gamble away all their assets at home .
You can not legislate away stupidity .
The stupid will always innovate .
On the other hand , if you believe that gambling addiction is a disease... well you certainly ca n't legislate away disease either .
Finally if you think the way to go is banning an activity that a small portion of the populace may have a problem with , so that the larger populace as a whole who find enjoyment in the activity are locked out of said activity , please let me know when you run for office so I can go out of my way to help someone else get elected.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It's harder to regulate, and easier for people to get addicted and gamble away all their assets at home.
You can not legislate away stupidity.
The stupid will always innovate.
On the other hand, if you believe that gambling addiction is a disease... well you certainly can't legislate away disease either.
Finally if you think the way to go is banning an activity that a small portion of the populace  may  have a problem with, so that the larger populace as a whole who find enjoyment in the activity are locked out of said activity, please let me know when you run for office so I can go out of my way to help someone else get elected...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059894</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1265639700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's harder to regulate, and easier for people to get addicted and gamble away all their assets at home.</p></div><p>So, are you trying to ban etrade.com and "flipping houses"?  Or is risk taking in general ok, and you just want to impose your peculiar morality about playing cards on others?</p><p>I'm not sure how its easier to get addicted to gambling at home.  I can tell you don't have a spouse, house, and little kids, as god knows I can't accomplish any tasks at home anymore.  Back in the bachelor apartment days, well yeah, maybe, and in addition to spare time, I also had more available cash to "gamble".  D-n-D, watching sports, and MMORPGs suffer the same fate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's harder to regulate , and easier for people to get addicted and gamble away all their assets at home.So , are you trying to ban etrade.com and " flipping houses " ?
Or is risk taking in general ok , and you just want to impose your peculiar morality about playing cards on others ? I 'm not sure how its easier to get addicted to gambling at home .
I can tell you do n't have a spouse , house , and little kids , as god knows I ca n't accomplish any tasks at home anymore .
Back in the bachelor apartment days , well yeah , maybe , and in addition to spare time , I also had more available cash to " gamble " .
D-n-D , watching sports , and MMORPGs suffer the same fate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's harder to regulate, and easier for people to get addicted and gamble away all their assets at home.So, are you trying to ban etrade.com and "flipping houses"?
Or is risk taking in general ok, and you just want to impose your peculiar morality about playing cards on others?I'm not sure how its easier to get addicted to gambling at home.
I can tell you don't have a spouse, house, and little kids, as god knows I can't accomplish any tasks at home anymore.
Back in the bachelor apartment days, well yeah, maybe, and in addition to spare time, I also had more available cash to "gamble".
D-n-D, watching sports, and MMORPGs suffer the same fate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060278</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>travdaddy</author>
	<datestamp>1265642640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would the house, online or otherwise, bother rigging a game that is already in their favor in the first place?  That would be rigging it twice.  If anything, an online casino should be able to give you better odds (still bad odds though) because they don't have to pay for a building, dealers, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would the house , online or otherwise , bother rigging a game that is already in their favor in the first place ?
That would be rigging it twice .
If anything , an online casino should be able to give you better odds ( still bad odds though ) because they do n't have to pay for a building , dealers , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would the house, online or otherwise, bother rigging a game that is already in their favor in the first place?
That would be rigging it twice.
If anything, an online casino should be able to give you better odds (still bad odds though) because they don't have to pay for a building, dealers, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31062838</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265656920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, I've never seen so much misinformation in a thread before. Clearly, hardly anyone at Slashdot understands finance.  Instead of replying to all the child posts, I'll reply to this OP.</p><p>First, stocks are not gambling unless you don't know what you are doing.  They are investment vehicles by which a corporation raises money to expand their business.  The strength and profitability of the company creates demand for ownership in the company, because ownerships gives you rights to share the profits or, if you own a large enough percentage, share ownership in the corporations power.  Stronger and more profitable corporations-&gt;stronger stock price.  Providing dividends is only one way corporations can increase demand and worth of their stock.</p><p>Futures and derivatives are not gambling either. They are ways for investors to manage risk.  If an investor buys short options on a stock they own, they are reducing the investors gain, but the investor has put a lower bound on the amount of potential loss.  It's essentially insurance to prevent losing all of your money if the company pulls a worldcom or enron.  Someone five years from retirement might consider buying such options to prevent losing their retirements in the event of a stock market crash--they can't accept high risk investments. The people who buy short options are investors with capital who are willing to accept more risk because of whatever particular investment goals they have.</p><p>But sure, it's fun to call it gambling if you don't understand what it actually is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , I 've never seen so much misinformation in a thread before .
Clearly , hardly anyone at Slashdot understands finance .
Instead of replying to all the child posts , I 'll reply to this OP.First , stocks are not gambling unless you do n't know what you are doing .
They are investment vehicles by which a corporation raises money to expand their business .
The strength and profitability of the company creates demand for ownership in the company , because ownerships gives you rights to share the profits or , if you own a large enough percentage , share ownership in the corporations power .
Stronger and more profitable corporations- &gt; stronger stock price .
Providing dividends is only one way corporations can increase demand and worth of their stock.Futures and derivatives are not gambling either .
They are ways for investors to manage risk .
If an investor buys short options on a stock they own , they are reducing the investors gain , but the investor has put a lower bound on the amount of potential loss .
It 's essentially insurance to prevent losing all of your money if the company pulls a worldcom or enron .
Someone five years from retirement might consider buying such options to prevent losing their retirements in the event of a stock market crash--they ca n't accept high risk investments .
The people who buy short options are investors with capital who are willing to accept more risk because of whatever particular investment goals they have.But sure , it 's fun to call it gambling if you do n't understand what it actually is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, I've never seen so much misinformation in a thread before.
Clearly, hardly anyone at Slashdot understands finance.
Instead of replying to all the child posts, I'll reply to this OP.First, stocks are not gambling unless you don't know what you are doing.
They are investment vehicles by which a corporation raises money to expand their business.
The strength and profitability of the company creates demand for ownership in the company, because ownerships gives you rights to share the profits or, if you own a large enough percentage, share ownership in the corporations power.
Stronger and more profitable corporations-&gt;stronger stock price.
Providing dividends is only one way corporations can increase demand and worth of their stock.Futures and derivatives are not gambling either.
They are ways for investors to manage risk.
If an investor buys short options on a stock they own, they are reducing the investors gain, but the investor has put a lower bound on the amount of potential loss.
It's essentially insurance to prevent losing all of your money if the company pulls a worldcom or enron.
Someone five years from retirement might consider buying such options to prevent losing their retirements in the event of a stock market crash--they can't accept high risk investments.
The people who buy short options are investors with capital who are willing to accept more risk because of whatever particular investment goals they have.But sure, it's fun to call it gambling if you don't understand what it actually is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31064020</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265662680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah but when your a competitive poker player, and your local brick and mortar casino could care less and never runs any tournaments or competitions.</p><p>it always should be up to the people on how they want to spend their own money, and not the government.</p><p>its not any harder to regulate then say golf, where people bet on holes and closest to the pin all the time and golf is legal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah but when your a competitive poker player , and your local brick and mortar casino could care less and never runs any tournaments or competitions.it always should be up to the people on how they want to spend their own money , and not the government.its not any harder to regulate then say golf , where people bet on holes and closest to the pin all the time and golf is legal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah but when your a competitive poker player, and your local brick and mortar casino could care less and never runs any tournaments or competitions.it always should be up to the people on how they want to spend their own money, and not the government.its not any harder to regulate then say golf, where people bet on holes and closest to the pin all the time and golf is legal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060190</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>Shakrai</author>
	<datestamp>1265641980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not up to government to keep you from eating too much, drinking too much</p></div><p>You do realize that the government taxes alcohol at a rate higher than most other products, right?  It's only a matter of time before some jackass politician gets the notion that we should do the same for food that they perceive is bad for you.
</p><p>The nanny state has already arrived.  <a href="http://slashdot.org/~mcgrew" title="slashdot.org">Some people</a> [slashdot.org] think that we should <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1538170&amp;cid=31039794" title="slashdot.org">continue to expand it</a> [slashdot.org] and don't realize the inherent contradiction between turning to the government for help and wanting the government to stay out of our lives.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not up to government to keep you from eating too much , drinking too muchYou do realize that the government taxes alcohol at a rate higher than most other products , right ?
It 's only a matter of time before some jackass politician gets the notion that we should do the same for food that they perceive is bad for you .
The nanny state has already arrived .
Some people [ slashdot.org ] think that we should continue to expand it [ slashdot.org ] and do n't realize the inherent contradiction between turning to the government for help and wanting the government to stay out of our lives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not up to government to keep you from eating too much, drinking too muchYou do realize that the government taxes alcohol at a rate higher than most other products, right?
It's only a matter of time before some jackass politician gets the notion that we should do the same for food that they perceive is bad for you.
The nanny state has already arrived.
Some people [slashdot.org] think that we should continue to expand it [slashdot.org] and don't realize the inherent contradiction between turning to the government for help and wanting the government to stay out of our lives.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31064296</id>
	<title>Re:Legalizing it just moves it overseas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265620800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What? who said they couldn't make it legal for U.S. based companies and illegal for offshore ones?</p></div><p>The WTO would come down fairly hard. Sure, the US can pass laws like that if it wants reciprocal bans on US goods.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
who said they could n't make it legal for U.S. based companies and illegal for offshore ones ? The WTO would come down fairly hard .
Sure , the US can pass laws like that if it wants reciprocal bans on US goods .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
who said they couldn't make it legal for U.S. based companies and illegal for offshore ones?The WTO would come down fairly hard.
Sure, the US can pass laws like that if it wants reciprocal bans on US goods.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31061150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31061852</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1265651820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>3) There is no third point.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
"Borrowed" for sig:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>3 ) There is no third point .
" Borrowed " for sig : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3) There is no third point.
"Borrowed" for sig:-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060358</id>
	<title>Totally wrong</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1265643360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>government's role should protect you from ME</i></p><p>It is, that's why we want to ban your gambling sites.  Gambling is just another way to screw with poor people, that don't need to be screwed with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>government 's role should protect you from MEIt is , that 's why we want to ban your gambling sites .
Gambling is just another way to screw with poor people , that do n't need to be screwed with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>government's role should protect you from MEIt is, that's why we want to ban your gambling sites.
Gambling is just another way to screw with poor people, that don't need to be screwed with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31061294</id>
	<title>Re:At UK sites</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1265649360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd put the whole 60k each way on yes.<br> <br>If it comes second, you still get 180k! (Based on the underneath "Yes pays 6-1" AC post below.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd put the whole 60k each way on yes .
If it comes second , you still get 180k !
( Based on the underneath " Yes pays 6-1 " AC post below .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd put the whole 60k each way on yes.
If it comes second, you still get 180k!
(Based on the underneath "Yes pays 6-1" AC post below.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31067536</id>
	<title>Re:Legalizing it just moves it overseas</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1265636220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you implement a law allowing online casinos and gambling but only by casinos who are willing to follow appropriate laws on things like taxes, validation that the games are fair etc.</p><p>Most legit casinos would have no problems with such things if it meant they could operate legitimately in the US and without the risk of having transactions from Americans denied</p><p>Its the casinos that are dodgy in the first place (not making payouts that people are owed, rigged games or whatever) that wont like it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you implement a law allowing online casinos and gambling but only by casinos who are willing to follow appropriate laws on things like taxes , validation that the games are fair etc.Most legit casinos would have no problems with such things if it meant they could operate legitimately in the US and without the risk of having transactions from Americans deniedIts the casinos that are dodgy in the first place ( not making payouts that people are owed , rigged games or whatever ) that wont like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you implement a law allowing online casinos and gambling but only by casinos who are willing to follow appropriate laws on things like taxes, validation that the games are fair etc.Most legit casinos would have no problems with such things if it meant they could operate legitimately in the US and without the risk of having transactions from Americans deniedIts the casinos that are dodgy in the first place (not making payouts that people are owed, rigged games or whatever) that wont like it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059924</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265639940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mmmm. The same can be said about all e-commerce. Or all e-anything, pretty much. Do you want to ban the internet ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mmmm .
The same can be said about all e-commerce .
Or all e-anything , pretty much .
Do you want to ban the internet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mmmm.
The same can be said about all e-commerce.
Or all e-anything, pretty much.
Do you want to ban the internet ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31067672</id>
	<title>Incentive not to cheat</title>
	<author>xswl0931</author>
	<datestamp>1265637660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Online poker, for example, the casino makes money on every hand played.  They don't care if the players win or lose, they just take out their "rake".  Since this is guaranteed money, why would they cheat and risk losing their players?</p><p>This doesn't mean that employees of an online casino won't cheat.  AbsolutePoker and UltimateBet both had occurrences of cheating and this was detected by players and "proven" through statistical analysis and hand analysis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Online poker , for example , the casino makes money on every hand played .
They do n't care if the players win or lose , they just take out their " rake " .
Since this is guaranteed money , why would they cheat and risk losing their players ? This does n't mean that employees of an online casino wo n't cheat .
AbsolutePoker and UltimateBet both had occurrences of cheating and this was detected by players and " proven " through statistical analysis and hand analysis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Online poker, for example, the casino makes money on every hand played.
They don't care if the players win or lose, they just take out their "rake".
Since this is guaranteed money, why would they cheat and risk losing their players?This doesn't mean that employees of an online casino won't cheat.
AbsolutePoker and UltimateBet both had occurrences of cheating and this was detected by players and "proven" through statistical analysis and hand analysis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059884</id>
	<title>stock market</title>
	<author>duckintheface</author>
	<datestamp>1265639580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>We already have internet gambling.  I gu</htmltext>
<tokenext>We already have internet gambling .
I gu</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We already have internet gambling.
I gu</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060340</id>
	<title>Let Vegas compete with the Cayman Islands</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265643240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the sooner, the better.  Solid competition from USA-based casinos would allow for a well-regulated, well-run environment.  Even Reservation Casinos would do well.  Why?  Only US-based casinos could offer incentives to players to come to their hotels and restaurants.  If Caesar's offered their player-points to players away from the casino, they'd be able to make money without a customer there, but then when they have some points, they can come in and take care of them.  Customers will want to go, and will inherently trust domestic bookmakers more than offshore.

Just ensure that all online-gambling is FEDERALLY taxed.  Get something out of it, please.  Tax the stupid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the sooner , the better .
Solid competition from USA-based casinos would allow for a well-regulated , well-run environment .
Even Reservation Casinos would do well .
Why ? Only US-based casinos could offer incentives to players to come to their hotels and restaurants .
If Caesar 's offered their player-points to players away from the casino , they 'd be able to make money without a customer there , but then when they have some points , they can come in and take care of them .
Customers will want to go , and will inherently trust domestic bookmakers more than offshore .
Just ensure that all online-gambling is FEDERALLY taxed .
Get something out of it , please .
Tax the stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the sooner, the better.
Solid competition from USA-based casinos would allow for a well-regulated, well-run environment.
Even Reservation Casinos would do well.
Why?  Only US-based casinos could offer incentives to players to come to their hotels and restaurants.
If Caesar's offered their player-points to players away from the casino, they'd be able to make money without a customer there, but then when they have some points, they can come in and take care of them.
Customers will want to go, and will inherently trust domestic bookmakers more than offshore.
Just ensure that all online-gambling is FEDERALLY taxed.
Get something out of it, please.
Tax the stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31061216</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265649000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If someone here can explain how the futures &amp; options market supports constructive industry I'd be happy to learn.  If you really want to make a lot of money with no investment you can buy credit default swaps.  It worked for AIG.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone here can explain how the futures &amp; options market supports constructive industry I 'd be happy to learn .
If you really want to make a lot of money with no investment you can buy credit default swaps .
It worked for AIG .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If someone here can explain how the futures &amp; options market supports constructive industry I'd be happy to learn.
If you really want to make a lot of money with no investment you can buy credit default swaps.
It worked for AIG.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059938</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265640120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean generally, yes, we don't need judges wasting their time with this shit, but this is no time to be legalizing what is essentially a formalized 419 scheme.</p><p>If it's online, you're basically guaranteed to lose, because the house can rig the game so easily it's not even funny. In a real casino they at least have to maintain the appearance that you have a chance of winning something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean generally , yes , we do n't need judges wasting their time with this shit , but this is no time to be legalizing what is essentially a formalized 419 scheme.If it 's online , you 're basically guaranteed to lose , because the house can rig the game so easily it 's not even funny .
In a real casino they at least have to maintain the appearance that you have a chance of winning something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean generally, yes, we don't need judges wasting their time with this shit, but this is no time to be legalizing what is essentially a formalized 419 scheme.If it's online, you're basically guaranteed to lose, because the house can rig the game so easily it's not even funny.
In a real casino they at least have to maintain the appearance that you have a chance of winning something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31062224</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265653800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31061250</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265649120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would love your opinion on those local governments banning trans fats in restaurants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would love your opinion on those local governments banning trans fats in restaurants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would love your opinion on those local governments banning trans fats in restaurants.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31065380</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>icebrain</author>
	<datestamp>1265625120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yet at times, I do think that some of the shamans, some of the time, actually were trying to keep most of their flock's creative urges aimed at constructive endeavors instead of destructive and wasteful ones.</p></div><p>In a similar vein, that's probably true of a lot of the "traditional' religious morals, especially with regard to intimate relations.  When you have a relatively short expected lifespan, high infant mortality, a technology level that requires the majority of manual labor to be ivested in agruculture just to sustain the existing population, and neighbors in the smae boat who are fighting the same population and resource pressures (thereby draining large parts of the population from war casualties), you wind up needing lots of people.  Any behavior that doesn't further that goal of making more people is rejected because it hurts society as a whole.</p><p>Today, with huge advances in agriculture, medicine, technology, and diplomacy, we no longer need to pump out as many people as possible to sustain (or even grow) our society.  It doesn't matter if some people don't produce children; others are willingly taking up the slack.  Behaviors previously rejected are now acceptable because they are not harming society.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet at times , I do think that some of the shamans , some of the time , actually were trying to keep most of their flock 's creative urges aimed at constructive endeavors instead of destructive and wasteful ones.In a similar vein , that 's probably true of a lot of the " traditional ' religious morals , especially with regard to intimate relations .
When you have a relatively short expected lifespan , high infant mortality , a technology level that requires the majority of manual labor to be ivested in agruculture just to sustain the existing population , and neighbors in the smae boat who are fighting the same population and resource pressures ( thereby draining large parts of the population from war casualties ) , you wind up needing lots of people .
Any behavior that does n't further that goal of making more people is rejected because it hurts society as a whole.Today , with huge advances in agriculture , medicine , technology , and diplomacy , we no longer need to pump out as many people as possible to sustain ( or even grow ) our society .
It does n't matter if some people do n't produce children ; others are willingly taking up the slack .
Behaviors previously rejected are now acceptable because they are not harming society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet at times, I do think that some of the shamans, some of the time, actually were trying to keep most of their flock's creative urges aimed at constructive endeavors instead of destructive and wasteful ones.In a similar vein, that's probably true of a lot of the "traditional' religious morals, especially with regard to intimate relations.
When you have a relatively short expected lifespan, high infant mortality, a technology level that requires the majority of manual labor to be ivested in agruculture just to sustain the existing population, and neighbors in the smae boat who are fighting the same population and resource pressures (thereby draining large parts of the population from war casualties), you wind up needing lots of people.
Any behavior that doesn't further that goal of making more people is rejected because it hurts society as a whole.Today, with huge advances in agriculture, medicine, technology, and diplomacy, we no longer need to pump out as many people as possible to sustain (or even grow) our society.
It doesn't matter if some people don't produce children; others are willingly taking up the slack.
Behaviors previously rejected are now acceptable because they are not harming society.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31063052</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>cayenne8</author>
	<datestamp>1265657880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"2) By making it legal, you make it possible to enforce monitoring of behaviors. Since players in the US would have to provide their SSNs for tax purposes, a central database of players could be maintained by the government (it would pretty much have to exist, again for tax purposes). That same database could be used to spot problem gamblers and steer them towards help. (Note that I personally am against this idea, but recognize it's inevitability.)"</i> <p>
Why would you have to do the SSN thing? You don't have to show your SSN (or any ID) to enter a brick and mortor casino and gamble. The only time that is required..is if you do any transactions over $10K I think. Why could online be any different? As an individual, there is a place on your 1040 tax form to put winnings/losses from gambling. It isn't the 'houses' responsibility to pay your taxes (again, unless you trip over the magic large number). The house pays their taxes...you pay yours. No need for more surveillance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" 2 ) By making it legal , you make it possible to enforce monitoring of behaviors .
Since players in the US would have to provide their SSNs for tax purposes , a central database of players could be maintained by the government ( it would pretty much have to exist , again for tax purposes ) .
That same database could be used to spot problem gamblers and steer them towards help .
( Note that I personally am against this idea , but recognize it 's inevitability .
) " Why would you have to do the SSN thing ?
You do n't have to show your SSN ( or any ID ) to enter a brick and mortor casino and gamble .
The only time that is required..is if you do any transactions over $ 10K I think .
Why could online be any different ?
As an individual , there is a place on your 1040 tax form to put winnings/losses from gambling .
It is n't the 'houses ' responsibility to pay your taxes ( again , unless you trip over the magic large number ) .
The house pays their taxes...you pay yours .
No need for more surveillance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"2) By making it legal, you make it possible to enforce monitoring of behaviors.
Since players in the US would have to provide their SSNs for tax purposes, a central database of players could be maintained by the government (it would pretty much have to exist, again for tax purposes).
That same database could be used to spot problem gamblers and steer them towards help.
(Note that I personally am against this idea, but recognize it's inevitability.
)" 
Why would you have to do the SSN thing?
You don't have to show your SSN (or any ID) to enter a brick and mortor casino and gamble.
The only time that is required..is if you do any transactions over $10K I think.
Why could online be any different?
As an individual, there is a place on your 1040 tax form to put winnings/losses from gambling.
It isn't the 'houses' responsibility to pay your taxes (again, unless you trip over the magic large number).
The house pays their taxes...you pay yours.
No need for more surveillance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059798</id>
	<title>At UK sites</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265638380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bet on he US end of online gambling ban.
Best odd guarenteed...
<br>
Yes (6/1)
<br>
No (2/5)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bet on he US end of online gambling ban .
Best odd guarenteed.. . Yes ( 6/1 ) No ( 2/5 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bet on he US end of online gambling ban.
Best odd guarenteed...

Yes (6/1)

No (2/5)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31063156</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265658360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I second the call for unbanning gambling in more areas. I live in North Texas, and the police in most of the towns here spend way, way too much time raiding private poker rooms</p></div></blockquote><p>Interesting.  It was my understanding that private gambling was legal in Texas, unless the house was taking a cut.  It seems like one could set up private poker rooms without violating the law.  A <a href="http://www.homepokergames.com/homepokerlaw.php" title="homepokergames.com" rel="nofollow">quick search</a> [homepokergames.com] shows this to be the case.</p><blockquote><div><p>Home poker games are legal in Texas as long as the game is in private, there is financial benfit except for money that is won, and all the players have equal odds of winning. There have been a couple of instances of raids on poker games in Texas but this is mainly due to the fact that there seems to be some really big underground games which are played at clubs. This shouldn't worry anyone hosting a casual game because the games that were busted were basically underground casinos making tons of money.</p></div></blockquote><p>All the <a href="http://www.legalizetexasgambling.com/TexasGamblingBusts.htm" title="legalizete...mbling.com" rel="nofollow">raids</a> [legalizete...mbling.com] I see aren't just private poker rooms, but have slots and other house favored things.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I second the call for unbanning gambling in more areas .
I live in North Texas , and the police in most of the towns here spend way , way too much time raiding private poker roomsInteresting .
It was my understanding that private gambling was legal in Texas , unless the house was taking a cut .
It seems like one could set up private poker rooms without violating the law .
A quick search [ homepokergames.com ] shows this to be the case.Home poker games are legal in Texas as long as the game is in private , there is financial benfit except for money that is won , and all the players have equal odds of winning .
There have been a couple of instances of raids on poker games in Texas but this is mainly due to the fact that there seems to be some really big underground games which are played at clubs .
This should n't worry anyone hosting a casual game because the games that were busted were basically underground casinos making tons of money.All the raids [ legalizete...mbling.com ] I see are n't just private poker rooms , but have slots and other house favored things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I second the call for unbanning gambling in more areas.
I live in North Texas, and the police in most of the towns here spend way, way too much time raiding private poker roomsInteresting.
It was my understanding that private gambling was legal in Texas, unless the house was taking a cut.
It seems like one could set up private poker rooms without violating the law.
A quick search [homepokergames.com] shows this to be the case.Home poker games are legal in Texas as long as the game is in private, there is financial benfit except for money that is won, and all the players have equal odds of winning.
There have been a couple of instances of raids on poker games in Texas but this is mainly due to the fact that there seems to be some really big underground games which are played at clubs.
This shouldn't worry anyone hosting a casual game because the games that were busted were basically underground casinos making tons of money.All the raids [legalizete...mbling.com] I see aren't just private poker rooms, but have slots and other house favored things.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060816</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>j00r0m4nc3r</author>
	<datestamp>1265646720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(if you voluntarily take part in something, by definition you cannot be a victim).</p></div><p>
That's an absurd statement. If I voluntarily play a game of poker in some guy's garage, and he cheats, am I not a victim? If I buy stock in a company that falsified their bookkeeping, am I not a victim? If you voluntarily take part in a game that's called "You Are Guaranteed To Lose Your Money. And We Really Mean That. You Will Not Win." then maybe you would be correct, but that is never the case. By your logic if I voluntarily went outside and got murdered I wouldn't be a victim, because everyone knows there is some small chance that you can get murdered whenever you go outside.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( if you voluntarily take part in something , by definition you can not be a victim ) .
That 's an absurd statement .
If I voluntarily play a game of poker in some guy 's garage , and he cheats , am I not a victim ?
If I buy stock in a company that falsified their bookkeeping , am I not a victim ?
If you voluntarily take part in a game that 's called " You Are Guaranteed To Lose Your Money .
And We Really Mean That .
You Will Not Win .
" then maybe you would be correct , but that is never the case .
By your logic if I voluntarily went outside and got murdered I would n't be a victim , because everyone knows there is some small chance that you can get murdered whenever you go outside .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(if you voluntarily take part in something, by definition you cannot be a victim).
That's an absurd statement.
If I voluntarily play a game of poker in some guy's garage, and he cheats, am I not a victim?
If I buy stock in a company that falsified their bookkeeping, am I not a victim?
If you voluntarily take part in a game that's called "You Are Guaranteed To Lose Your Money.
And We Really Mean That.
You Will Not Win.
" then maybe you would be correct, but that is never the case.
By your logic if I voluntarily went outside and got murdered I wouldn't be a victim, because everyone knows there is some small chance that you can get murdered whenever you go outside.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31061534</id>
	<title>Re:Legalizing it just moves it overseas</title>
	<author>nametaken</author>
	<datestamp>1265650440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>After all, why not? What have they got to lose?</i></p><p>To be worth the aggravation they'd have to make good money doing it.  If they're making good money doing it the players will notice and play elsewhere.  Even with the ban there's brutal competition for players.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After all , why not ?
What have they got to lose ? To be worth the aggravation they 'd have to make good money doing it .
If they 're making good money doing it the players will notice and play elsewhere .
Even with the ban there 's brutal competition for players .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all, why not?
What have they got to lose?To be worth the aggravation they'd have to make good money doing it.
If they're making good money doing it the players will notice and play elsewhere.
Even with the ban there's brutal competition for players.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059980</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265640540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's harder to regulate</i></p><p>Why should gambling be regulated at all? Cheating is fraud, that's already illegal. With illegal gambling, fraud is harder to prosecute, since the victim is also breaking the law.</p><p><i>and easier for people to get addicted and gamble away all their assets at home</i></p><p>It's not up to government to keep you from eating too much, drinking too much, or gambling too much. It should not be government's role to protect you from yourself, government's role should protect you from ME. You would like them to outlaw McDonald's because too many people can't help but shove so much junk food down their gullets that they become unhealthily obese? I supppose you want to outlaw <i>World of Warcraft</i> because some people screw their lives up with that? Outlaw alcohol because some people are alcoholics?</p><p>If you have a problem with gambling, that's a personal problem, not a public problem and is non of my or government's business.</p><p><i>and gets people out of the house</i></p><p>Dude, this is slashdot. Most of us don't even come out of the basement. HIBT?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's harder to regulateWhy should gambling be regulated at all ?
Cheating is fraud , that 's already illegal .
With illegal gambling , fraud is harder to prosecute , since the victim is also breaking the law.and easier for people to get addicted and gamble away all their assets at homeIt 's not up to government to keep you from eating too much , drinking too much , or gambling too much .
It should not be government 's role to protect you from yourself , government 's role should protect you from ME .
You would like them to outlaw McDonald 's because too many people ca n't help but shove so much junk food down their gullets that they become unhealthily obese ?
I supppose you want to outlaw World of Warcraft because some people screw their lives up with that ?
Outlaw alcohol because some people are alcoholics ? If you have a problem with gambling , that 's a personal problem , not a public problem and is non of my or government 's business.and gets people out of the houseDude , this is slashdot .
Most of us do n't even come out of the basement .
HIBT ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's harder to regulateWhy should gambling be regulated at all?
Cheating is fraud, that's already illegal.
With illegal gambling, fraud is harder to prosecute, since the victim is also breaking the law.and easier for people to get addicted and gamble away all their assets at homeIt's not up to government to keep you from eating too much, drinking too much, or gambling too much.
It should not be government's role to protect you from yourself, government's role should protect you from ME.
You would like them to outlaw McDonald's because too many people can't help but shove so much junk food down their gullets that they become unhealthily obese?
I supppose you want to outlaw World of Warcraft because some people screw their lives up with that?
Outlaw alcohol because some people are alcoholics?If you have a problem with gambling, that's a personal problem, not a public problem and is non of my or government's business.and gets people out of the houseDude, this is slashdot.
Most of us don't even come out of the basement.
HIBT?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060158</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>Dachannien</author>
	<datestamp>1265641800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So, are you trying to ban etrade.com and "flipping houses"? Or is risk taking in general ok, and you just want to impose your peculiar morality about playing cards on others?</p></div><p>Kind of a straw man, eh?  A key feature of gambling against the house is that, over the long run, the house will always take its cut.  The more you play, the more you lose.  Not all risk-taking involving money is like that - you can make tons of money in the stock market, for example, if you do it right.</p><p>It seems like poker, played against other RL opponents, would be outside the bounds of this, although there's no guarantee that you won't be stuck at a table with a bunch of other people colluding to take your money (or one person playing several seats).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I also had more available cash to "gamble"</p></div><p>A fairly common event in the lives of addicted gamblers is to gamble cash that you <i>don't</i> have available.  Since you'd be bankrolling yourself with credit cards rather than really shady loans, you also don't have the demotivating factor of Vinnie showing up to break your kneecaps when you don't pay up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , are you trying to ban etrade.com and " flipping houses " ?
Or is risk taking in general ok , and you just want to impose your peculiar morality about playing cards on others ? Kind of a straw man , eh ?
A key feature of gambling against the house is that , over the long run , the house will always take its cut .
The more you play , the more you lose .
Not all risk-taking involving money is like that - you can make tons of money in the stock market , for example , if you do it right.It seems like poker , played against other RL opponents , would be outside the bounds of this , although there 's no guarantee that you wo n't be stuck at a table with a bunch of other people colluding to take your money ( or one person playing several seats ) .I also had more available cash to " gamble " A fairly common event in the lives of addicted gamblers is to gamble cash that you do n't have available .
Since you 'd be bankrolling yourself with credit cards rather than really shady loans , you also do n't have the demotivating factor of Vinnie showing up to break your kneecaps when you do n't pay up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, are you trying to ban etrade.com and "flipping houses"?
Or is risk taking in general ok, and you just want to impose your peculiar morality about playing cards on others?Kind of a straw man, eh?
A key feature of gambling against the house is that, over the long run, the house will always take its cut.
The more you play, the more you lose.
Not all risk-taking involving money is like that - you can make tons of money in the stock market, for example, if you do it right.It seems like poker, played against other RL opponents, would be outside the bounds of this, although there's no guarantee that you won't be stuck at a table with a bunch of other people colluding to take your money (or one person playing several seats).I also had more available cash to "gamble"A fairly common event in the lives of addicted gamblers is to gamble cash that you don't have available.
Since you'd be bankrolling yourself with credit cards rather than really shady loans, you also don't have the demotivating factor of Vinnie showing up to break your kneecaps when you don't pay up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060500</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265644560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;t's not up to government to keep you from eating too much, drinking too much, or gambling too much.<br>Really? And do you expect me to pay for your medical care, psychological care an rehab, not to mention lost productivity and revenue by having an otherwise productive person out of circulation?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; t 's not up to government to keep you from eating too much , drinking too much , or gambling too much.Really ?
And do you expect me to pay for your medical care , psychological care an rehab , not to mention lost productivity and revenue by having an otherwise productive person out of circulation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;t's not up to government to keep you from eating too much, drinking too much, or gambling too much.Really?
And do you expect me to pay for your medical care, psychological care an rehab, not to mention lost productivity and revenue by having an otherwise productive person out of circulation?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31068500</id>
	<title>Most of these transactions were fraudulent anyway</title>
	<author>mykos</author>
	<datestamp>1265647320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ugh...I work for a credit card issuer.  I guess it may roll in more revenue for us, but before the ban, the majority of these transactions were fraudulent anyway
<br>
The more serious gambling addicts will stop at nothing to get their fix, including stealing card info from family members, friends, and strangers.  If this law passes, get ready for a flurry of chargebacks, followed by charge-offs, followed by increased rates and fees on cash advances since they will be such high-risk transactions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ugh...I work for a credit card issuer .
I guess it may roll in more revenue for us , but before the ban , the majority of these transactions were fraudulent anyway The more serious gambling addicts will stop at nothing to get their fix , including stealing card info from family members , friends , and strangers .
If this law passes , get ready for a flurry of chargebacks , followed by charge-offs , followed by increased rates and fees on cash advances since they will be such high-risk transactions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ugh...I work for a credit card issuer.
I guess it may roll in more revenue for us, but before the ban, the majority of these transactions were fraudulent anyway

The more serious gambling addicts will stop at nothing to get their fix, including stealing card info from family members, friends, and strangers.
If this law passes, get ready for a flurry of chargebacks, followed by charge-offs, followed by increased rates and fees on cash advances since they will be such high-risk transactions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060514</id>
	<title>Re:Legalizing it just moves it overseas</title>
	<author>wurble</author>
	<datestamp>1265644680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of the problems with overseas casinos is lack of oversight.  With no oversight, there's a very good chance that the casino you are logged into will cheat.  After all, why not?  What have they got to lose?  It's not like you can report them to some authority.  Heck, even online poker they can throw in a house hand that wins in addition to taking a cut of the pot officially.  Nothing to stop them.<br>
<br>
So what does legalizing it in the US get?  It allows for oversight.  Sure some places will break or bend the rules, but there will be risk in that for them so it's less likely.  At the very least it wouldn't likely be rampant like it is with overseas online casinos.  Any online casino based in the US would be regulated by local, state, and federal gambling boards.  These boards would work to ensure payout percentages, and check for cheating.  it'd be tougher than regulating brick and mortar casinos, but some oversight and regulation is better than none.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the problems with overseas casinos is lack of oversight .
With no oversight , there 's a very good chance that the casino you are logged into will cheat .
After all , why not ?
What have they got to lose ?
It 's not like you can report them to some authority .
Heck , even online poker they can throw in a house hand that wins in addition to taking a cut of the pot officially .
Nothing to stop them .
So what does legalizing it in the US get ?
It allows for oversight .
Sure some places will break or bend the rules , but there will be risk in that for them so it 's less likely .
At the very least it would n't likely be rampant like it is with overseas online casinos .
Any online casino based in the US would be regulated by local , state , and federal gambling boards .
These boards would work to ensure payout percentages , and check for cheating .
it 'd be tougher than regulating brick and mortar casinos , but some oversight and regulation is better than none .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the problems with overseas casinos is lack of oversight.
With no oversight, there's a very good chance that the casino you are logged into will cheat.
After all, why not?
What have they got to lose?
It's not like you can report them to some authority.
Heck, even online poker they can throw in a house hand that wins in addition to taking a cut of the pot officially.
Nothing to stop them.
So what does legalizing it in the US get?
It allows for oversight.
Sure some places will break or bend the rules, but there will be risk in that for them so it's less likely.
At the very least it wouldn't likely be rampant like it is with overseas online casinos.
Any online casino based in the US would be regulated by local, state, and federal gambling boards.
These boards would work to ensure payout percentages, and check for cheating.
it'd be tougher than regulating brick and mortar casinos, but some oversight and regulation is better than none.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060096</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>neoform</author>
	<datestamp>1265641200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If it's online, you're basically guaranteed to lose, because the house can rig the game so easily it's not even funny.</p></div></blockquote><p>

I guess auditing their code would be impossible, after all, they certainly don't do that for banks and casinos..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's online , you 're basically guaranteed to lose , because the house can rig the game so easily it 's not even funny .
I guess auditing their code would be impossible , after all , they certainly do n't do that for banks and casinos. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's online, you're basically guaranteed to lose, because the house can rig the game so easily it's not even funny.
I guess auditing their code would be impossible, after all, they certainly don't do that for banks and casinos..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31064216</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1265620380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't have to eat junk food to have a heart attack, and you don't have to smoke to get cancer. Also, the converse is true. My grandmother's doctor, for example, told her "you have to get your cholesterol down or you're going to die." Well, the doctor died. Her next doctor said the same thing, and she outlived him as well. After outliving three more doctors who all told her if she didn't get her cholesterol down she was going to die, she finally did die.</p><p>She fell down in the nursing home and broke her hip at age 99.</p><p>Her older brother had stopped smoking at age 82 after starting at age 12; he got a skin cancer on his lip and it scared the hell out of him. He died twelve years later of "old age".</p><p>Meanwhile, my grandmother and her siblings, all who lived very long, went to the doctor on Medicare (your dime) every two weeks. Her son, my Uncle, smoked 4 packs of Kools per day, drank heavily, and worked at a garbage incinerator. He didn't live long enough to collect Medicare. Your fatass McOffal Eater who dies young is saving you money; the health nut who eats right, execrsizes, dosn't smoke or drink, are going to be a drain on the system far longer. They're the ones hurting you.</p><p>If you're not smart enough to choose the right grandparents, you're hurting me.</p><p>My friend Linda died of a tumor on her gall bladder. I don't think a different diet or lifestyle would have helped her a bit, but access to health care would have. She won't be using any more health care dollars either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't have to eat junk food to have a heart attack , and you do n't have to smoke to get cancer .
Also , the converse is true .
My grandmother 's doctor , for example , told her " you have to get your cholesterol down or you 're going to die .
" Well , the doctor died .
Her next doctor said the same thing , and she outlived him as well .
After outliving three more doctors who all told her if she did n't get her cholesterol down she was going to die , she finally did die.She fell down in the nursing home and broke her hip at age 99.Her older brother had stopped smoking at age 82 after starting at age 12 ; he got a skin cancer on his lip and it scared the hell out of him .
He died twelve years later of " old age " .Meanwhile , my grandmother and her siblings , all who lived very long , went to the doctor on Medicare ( your dime ) every two weeks .
Her son , my Uncle , smoked 4 packs of Kools per day , drank heavily , and worked at a garbage incinerator .
He did n't live long enough to collect Medicare .
Your fatass McOffal Eater who dies young is saving you money ; the health nut who eats right , execrsizes , dos n't smoke or drink , are going to be a drain on the system far longer .
They 're the ones hurting you.If you 're not smart enough to choose the right grandparents , you 're hurting me.My friend Linda died of a tumor on her gall bladder .
I do n't think a different diet or lifestyle would have helped her a bit , but access to health care would have .
She wo n't be using any more health care dollars either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't have to eat junk food to have a heart attack, and you don't have to smoke to get cancer.
Also, the converse is true.
My grandmother's doctor, for example, told her "you have to get your cholesterol down or you're going to die.
" Well, the doctor died.
Her next doctor said the same thing, and she outlived him as well.
After outliving three more doctors who all told her if she didn't get her cholesterol down she was going to die, she finally did die.She fell down in the nursing home and broke her hip at age 99.Her older brother had stopped smoking at age 82 after starting at age 12; he got a skin cancer on his lip and it scared the hell out of him.
He died twelve years later of "old age".Meanwhile, my grandmother and her siblings, all who lived very long, went to the doctor on Medicare (your dime) every two weeks.
Her son, my Uncle, smoked 4 packs of Kools per day, drank heavily, and worked at a garbage incinerator.
He didn't live long enough to collect Medicare.
Your fatass McOffal Eater who dies young is saving you money; the health nut who eats right, execrsizes, dosn't smoke or drink, are going to be a drain on the system far longer.
They're the ones hurting you.If you're not smart enough to choose the right grandparents, you're hurting me.My friend Linda died of a tumor on her gall bladder.
I don't think a different diet or lifestyle would have helped her a bit, but access to health care would have.
She won't be using any more health care dollars either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848</id>
	<title>Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>ZorinLynx</author>
	<datestamp>1265639100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's harder to regulate, and easier for people to get addicted and gamble away all their assets at home.</p><p>I'd much rather online gambling remain banned, and we unban brick and mortar casinos across the country. At least the latter can be regulated, brings money into the local economy, and gets people out of the house.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's harder to regulate , and easier for people to get addicted and gamble away all their assets at home.I 'd much rather online gambling remain banned , and we unban brick and mortar casinos across the country .
At least the latter can be regulated , brings money into the local economy , and gets people out of the house .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's harder to regulate, and easier for people to get addicted and gamble away all their assets at home.I'd much rather online gambling remain banned, and we unban brick and mortar casinos across the country.
At least the latter can be regulated, brings money into the local economy, and gets people out of the house.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31061352</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>Jaeph</author>
	<datestamp>1265649660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's nice and easy to label it all "risk-taking", but there is a distinction between betting on cards and buying houses.  Quite honestly, I've never seen a problem with house-flipping; sure, there are probably marginal cases, but in general people buy houses that need real work done to them, do that work, then resell.  Sounds completely above-board to me.</p><p>-Jeff</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's nice and easy to label it all " risk-taking " , but there is a distinction between betting on cards and buying houses .
Quite honestly , I 've never seen a problem with house-flipping ; sure , there are probably marginal cases , but in general people buy houses that need real work done to them , do that work , then resell .
Sounds completely above-board to me.-Jeff</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's nice and easy to label it all "risk-taking", but there is a distinction between betting on cards and buying houses.
Quite honestly, I've never seen a problem with house-flipping; sure, there are probably marginal cases, but in general people buy houses that need real work done to them, do that work, then resell.
Sounds completely above-board to me.-Jeff</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060272</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>Speare</author>
	<datestamp>1265642580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So, are you trying to ban etrade.com and "flipping houses"? Or is risk taking in general ok, and you just want to impose your peculiar morality about playing cards on others?</p></div></blockquote><p>This is a tempting philosophical generalization, but there is a critical difference between gambling and your other examples of risk-taking.  Trading securities has an element of supporting the work of the company involved:  you are supporting constructive industry, whether you end up with a gain or a loss on your "bet" in the market.  Flipping houses has an element of physical maintenance on the property:  it's hard to earn any profit without at least trimming the bushes, and many flippers put significantly more elbow grease into the property so it will command a higher price.  In the case of betting on whether you get three Queens in a random selection of cards, there is no constructive aspect.  It is for this reason that many of the ancient religions forbid the activity, and as we all know, ancient religions still hold particular sway over the majority of mankind.</p><p>You might be able to tell that I'm not keen on the hocus-pocus of the church.  Hey, I sell a bumper sticker that says "if electricity comes from electrons, what does morality come from?"  Yet at times, I do think that some of the shamans, some of the time, actually were trying to keep most of their flock's creative urges aimed at constructive endeavors instead of destructive and wasteful ones.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , are you trying to ban etrade.com and " flipping houses " ?
Or is risk taking in general ok , and you just want to impose your peculiar morality about playing cards on others ? This is a tempting philosophical generalization , but there is a critical difference between gambling and your other examples of risk-taking .
Trading securities has an element of supporting the work of the company involved : you are supporting constructive industry , whether you end up with a gain or a loss on your " bet " in the market .
Flipping houses has an element of physical maintenance on the property : it 's hard to earn any profit without at least trimming the bushes , and many flippers put significantly more elbow grease into the property so it will command a higher price .
In the case of betting on whether you get three Queens in a random selection of cards , there is no constructive aspect .
It is for this reason that many of the ancient religions forbid the activity , and as we all know , ancient religions still hold particular sway over the majority of mankind.You might be able to tell that I 'm not keen on the hocus-pocus of the church .
Hey , I sell a bumper sticker that says " if electricity comes from electrons , what does morality come from ?
" Yet at times , I do think that some of the shamans , some of the time , actually were trying to keep most of their flock 's creative urges aimed at constructive endeavors instead of destructive and wasteful ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, are you trying to ban etrade.com and "flipping houses"?
Or is risk taking in general ok, and you just want to impose your peculiar morality about playing cards on others?This is a tempting philosophical generalization, but there is a critical difference between gambling and your other examples of risk-taking.
Trading securities has an element of supporting the work of the company involved:  you are supporting constructive industry, whether you end up with a gain or a loss on your "bet" in the market.
Flipping houses has an element of physical maintenance on the property:  it's hard to earn any profit without at least trimming the bushes, and many flippers put significantly more elbow grease into the property so it will command a higher price.
In the case of betting on whether you get three Queens in a random selection of cards, there is no constructive aspect.
It is for this reason that many of the ancient religions forbid the activity, and as we all know, ancient religions still hold particular sway over the majority of mankind.You might be able to tell that I'm not keen on the hocus-pocus of the church.
Hey, I sell a bumper sticker that says "if electricity comes from electrons, what does morality come from?
"  Yet at times, I do think that some of the shamans, some of the time, actually were trying to keep most of their flock's creative urges aimed at constructive endeavors instead of destructive and wasteful ones.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31063526</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265660100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>money into the local economy ??</p><p>I guess you never visited more then the "strip" in Atlantic city then</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>money into the local economy ?
? I guess you never visited more then the " strip " in Atlantic city then</tokentext>
<sentencetext>money into the local economy ?
?I guess you never visited more then the "strip" in Atlantic city then</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060954</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265647740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. Internet gambling, like all gambling, is a terrible idea. Because the odds are always tilted in the house's favor, you lost the moment you type in a URL or cross the physical threshold. Gambling preys on the poor, the weak, and the stupid, and I don't like the idea of living in a society where it's not only right, but justifiable to take advantage of another man's desperation.</p><p>That said, banning gambling itself causes harm: it leads to intrusive regulation, jail sentences for otherwise-productive people, and resentment of the government. The harm caused by the ban exceeds the harm of gambling itself, and so reluctantly and grudgingly, I'm forced to oppose the ban.</p><p>That said, there are things we can do to discourage gambling without banning it outright. The tax code is part of the solution. I'd also be in favor of levying a special tax on gambling houses (physical or online), and using that money to run anti-gambling advertisements, and to fund gambling addiction programs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
Internet gambling , like all gambling , is a terrible idea .
Because the odds are always tilted in the house 's favor , you lost the moment you type in a URL or cross the physical threshold .
Gambling preys on the poor , the weak , and the stupid , and I do n't like the idea of living in a society where it 's not only right , but justifiable to take advantage of another man 's desperation.That said , banning gambling itself causes harm : it leads to intrusive regulation , jail sentences for otherwise-productive people , and resentment of the government .
The harm caused by the ban exceeds the harm of gambling itself , and so reluctantly and grudgingly , I 'm forced to oppose the ban.That said , there are things we can do to discourage gambling without banning it outright .
The tax code is part of the solution .
I 'd also be in favor of levying a special tax on gambling houses ( physical or online ) , and using that money to run anti-gambling advertisements , and to fund gambling addiction programs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
Internet gambling, like all gambling, is a terrible idea.
Because the odds are always tilted in the house's favor, you lost the moment you type in a URL or cross the physical threshold.
Gambling preys on the poor, the weak, and the stupid, and I don't like the idea of living in a society where it's not only right, but justifiable to take advantage of another man's desperation.That said, banning gambling itself causes harm: it leads to intrusive regulation, jail sentences for otherwise-productive people, and resentment of the government.
The harm caused by the ban exceeds the harm of gambling itself, and so reluctantly and grudgingly, I'm forced to oppose the ban.That said, there are things we can do to discourage gambling without banning it outright.
The tax code is part of the solution.
I'd also be in favor of levying a special tax on gambling houses (physical or online), and using that money to run anti-gambling advertisements, and to fund gambling addiction programs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059792</id>
	<title>Legalizing it just moves it overseas</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1265638320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you make online gambling lawful, it just gives the online casinos incentive to go overseas to avoid paying any tax whatsoever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you make online gambling lawful , it just gives the online casinos incentive to go overseas to avoid paying any tax whatsoever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you make online gambling lawful, it just gives the online casinos incentive to go overseas to avoid paying any tax whatsoever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060108</id>
	<title>we need more sports books like the race books then</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265641320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we need more sports books like the race books then and some states now have online Horse betting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we need more sports books like the race books then and some states now have online Horse betting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we need more sports books like the race books then and some states now have online Horse betting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31071202</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1265726460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> It's harder to regulate, and easier for people to get addicted and gamble away all their assets at home.</p></div></blockquote><p>And yet people who gamble away other people's assets at work get massive bonuses.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's harder to regulate , and easier for people to get addicted and gamble away all their assets at home.And yet people who gamble away other people 's assets at work get massive bonuses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It's harder to regulate, and easier for people to get addicted and gamble away all their assets at home.And yet people who gamble away other people's assets at work get massive bonuses.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31066506</id>
	<title>Re:Online gambling is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265629620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your argument is the same if you replace Online gambling with "drugs"  or "child porn".</p><p>All those "Offshore" gambling would be pushed out by the "Onshore: Giants anyway.</p><p>Gambling is not free money for the government.  It is an expense.  Like drinking or smoking or illegal drugs or child porn.<br>legalize illegal drugs and you still have to deal with the addicts.  Gambling with borrowed money ( Credit cards) can never end well.<br>In the current enviornment the Card companies may not be so happy for the extra business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your argument is the same if you replace Online gambling with " drugs " or " child porn " .All those " Offshore " gambling would be pushed out by the " Onshore : Giants anyway.Gambling is not free money for the government .
It is an expense .
Like drinking or smoking or illegal drugs or child porn.legalize illegal drugs and you still have to deal with the addicts .
Gambling with borrowed money ( Credit cards ) can never end well.In the current enviornment the Card companies may not be so happy for the extra business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your argument is the same if you replace Online gambling with "drugs"  or "child porn".All those "Offshore" gambling would be pushed out by the "Onshore: Giants anyway.Gambling is not free money for the government.
It is an expense.
Like drinking or smoking or illegal drugs or child porn.legalize illegal drugs and you still have to deal with the addicts.
Gambling with borrowed money ( Credit cards) can never end well.In the current enviornment the Card companies may not be so happy for the extra business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060066</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>chrisG23</author>
	<datestamp>1265641080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have obviously not done any gambling online. A large percentage, perhaps even the majority of online gambling, is poker. When you go to an online poker site, you are not playing against the house/online gambling site. You are playing against other players, and the gambling site gets its money by charging a fee, a percentage of the buy in in a tournament or a percentage of the pot. <p>
Of course there is no 100\% guarantee that the online gambling site is not putting an employee that can see the cards in on a table, but that would really net them so little money in comparison to hosting 100's or even thousands of tables simultaneously, and getting their little fee from each of them. Not the mention the damage to their reputation if it were discovered (there is great competition amongst online poker sites.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have obviously not done any gambling online .
A large percentage , perhaps even the majority of online gambling , is poker .
When you go to an online poker site , you are not playing against the house/online gambling site .
You are playing against other players , and the gambling site gets its money by charging a fee , a percentage of the buy in in a tournament or a percentage of the pot .
Of course there is no 100 \ % guarantee that the online gambling site is not putting an employee that can see the cards in on a table , but that would really net them so little money in comparison to hosting 100 's or even thousands of tables simultaneously , and getting their little fee from each of them .
Not the mention the damage to their reputation if it were discovered ( there is great competition amongst online poker sites .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have obviously not done any gambling online.
A large percentage, perhaps even the majority of online gambling, is poker.
When you go to an online poker site, you are not playing against the house/online gambling site.
You are playing against other players, and the gambling site gets its money by charging a fee, a percentage of the buy in in a tournament or a percentage of the pot.
Of course there is no 100\% guarantee that the online gambling site is not putting an employee that can see the cards in on a table, but that would really net them so little money in comparison to hosting 100's or even thousands of tables simultaneously, and getting their little fee from each of them.
Not the mention the damage to their reputation if it were discovered (there is great competition amongst online poker sites.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059854</id>
	<title>Behoove?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265639160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd like to come to this behooving party...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to come to this behooving party.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to come to this behooving party...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059830</id>
	<title>Re:Legalizing it just moves it overseas</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1265638860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you make online gambling lawful, it just gives the online casinos incentive to go overseas to avoid paying any tax whatsoever.</p></div><p>I continue to be impressed by your talents though this isn't your usual fare. This is clearly true because we all know that making online gambling illegal gives online casinos incentive to stay in the US. It's like if we legalized pot smoking in K-12 school. It would encourage students to smoke off campus due to the taxes!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you make online gambling lawful , it just gives the online casinos incentive to go overseas to avoid paying any tax whatsoever.I continue to be impressed by your talents though this is n't your usual fare .
This is clearly true because we all know that making online gambling illegal gives online casinos incentive to stay in the US .
It 's like if we legalized pot smoking in K-12 school .
It would encourage students to smoke off campus due to the taxes !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you make online gambling lawful, it just gives the online casinos incentive to go overseas to avoid paying any tax whatsoever.I continue to be impressed by your talents though this isn't your usual fare.
This is clearly true because we all know that making online gambling illegal gives online casinos incentive to stay in the US.
It's like if we legalized pot smoking in K-12 school.
It would encourage students to smoke off campus due to the taxes!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31061358</id>
	<title>reason</title>
	<author>jackie cheung</author>
	<datestamp>1265649720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I bet OBAMA must lost money on gambling.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet OBAMA must lost money on gambling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet OBAMA must lost money on gambling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31063412</id>
	<title>Re:Legalizing it just moves it overseas</title>
	<author>pluther</author>
	<datestamp>1265659620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's true just about anywhere.</p><p>The first time I was in Eugene, Oregon, I was looking for a bottle of rum at about 9 at night.</p><p>I went to two different stores before discovering that you can't buy rum in a grocery store in Oregon.  After learning of the existence of specialized liquor stores, I was walking downtown in search of one.  I asked several passersby if they could give me directions.</p><p>The only ones I could find were closed.</p><p>In the end, nobody could help me find rum.<br>But three different people offered to sell me pot, and one offered LSD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's true just about anywhere.The first time I was in Eugene , Oregon , I was looking for a bottle of rum at about 9 at night.I went to two different stores before discovering that you ca n't buy rum in a grocery store in Oregon .
After learning of the existence of specialized liquor stores , I was walking downtown in search of one .
I asked several passersby if they could give me directions.The only ones I could find were closed.In the end , nobody could help me find rum.But three different people offered to sell me pot , and one offered LSD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's true just about anywhere.The first time I was in Eugene, Oregon, I was looking for a bottle of rum at about 9 at night.I went to two different stores before discovering that you can't buy rum in a grocery store in Oregon.
After learning of the existence of specialized liquor stores, I was walking downtown in search of one.
I asked several passersby if they could give me directions.The only ones I could find were closed.In the end, nobody could help me find rum.But three different people offered to sell me pot, and one offered LSD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059880</id>
	<title>Gains steam, eh?</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1265639520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like a bunch of hot air to me (probably with the goal of making the eventual legalization seem like an inevitability rather than the results of bribery).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like a bunch of hot air to me ( probably with the goal of making the eventual legalization seem like an inevitability rather than the results of bribery ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like a bunch of hot air to me (probably with the goal of making the eventual legalization seem like an inevitability rather than the results of bribery).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31063210</id>
	<title>Re:Legalizing it just moves it overseas</title>
	<author>bmecoli</author>
	<datestamp>1265658660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You can buy pot in any high school, but not beer. That should tell people something about their misguided drug laws, which cause the very problems they purport to solve.</p></div><p>You can easily conceal a dime bag of weed in high school.  A bottle of beer?  Not so much...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can buy pot in any high school , but not beer .
That should tell people something about their misguided drug laws , which cause the very problems they purport to solve.You can easily conceal a dime bag of weed in high school .
A bottle of beer ?
Not so much.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can buy pot in any high school, but not beer.
That should tell people something about their misguided drug laws, which cause the very problems they purport to solve.You can easily conceal a dime bag of weed in high school.
A bottle of beer?
Not so much...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31069270</id>
	<title>Re:Legalizing it just moves it overseas</title>
	<author>eyendall</author>
	<datestamp>1265656860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But I thought opposition to paying taxes was the American way. True patriots go offshore, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But I thought opposition to paying taxes was the American way .
True patriots go offshore , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I thought opposition to paying taxes was the American way.
True patriots go offshore, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31061374</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>alexo</author>
	<datestamp>1265649720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You have obviously not done any gambling online. A large percentage, perhaps even the majority of online gambling, is poker. When you go to an online poker site, you are not playing against the house/online gambling site. You are playing against other players, and the gambling site gets its money by charging a fee, a percentage of the buy in in a tournament or a percentage of the pot.</p></div></blockquote><p>I wouldn't even put poker in the same "gambling" category as casino games (online or otherwise), as it was clearly demonstrated that in poker <a href="http://www.cigital.com/resources/gaming/poker" title="cigital.com">skill dominates luck</a> [cigital.com].<br>Sure, there is the element of chance but then, it is also present in contract bridge and in backgammon and you don't hear those referred to as gambling.</p><blockquote><div><p>Of course there is no 100\% guarantee that the online gambling site is not putting an employee that can see the cards in on a table, but that would really net them so little money in comparison to hosting 100's or even thousands of tables simultaneously, and getting their little fee from each of them. Not the mention the damage to their reputation if it were discovered (there is great competition amongst online poker sites.)</p></div></blockquote><p>There can be no 100\% guarantees but, given the large number of people analyzing the games for statistical and behavioral discrepancies, it will be hard to pull something like that off.  The <a href="http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/the-absolute-poker-cheating-scandal-blown-wide-open" title="nytimes.com">Absolute Poker scandal</a> [nytimes.com] shows that cheating will be detected.</p><p>Also, the major online poker sites do their best to detect bots, collusions and other forms of cheating using their own server-side analysis.  After all, nobody in their right mind wants to kill the goose that lays golden eggs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have obviously not done any gambling online .
A large percentage , perhaps even the majority of online gambling , is poker .
When you go to an online poker site , you are not playing against the house/online gambling site .
You are playing against other players , and the gambling site gets its money by charging a fee , a percentage of the buy in in a tournament or a percentage of the pot.I would n't even put poker in the same " gambling " category as casino games ( online or otherwise ) , as it was clearly demonstrated that in poker skill dominates luck [ cigital.com ] .Sure , there is the element of chance but then , it is also present in contract bridge and in backgammon and you do n't hear those referred to as gambling.Of course there is no 100 \ % guarantee that the online gambling site is not putting an employee that can see the cards in on a table , but that would really net them so little money in comparison to hosting 100 's or even thousands of tables simultaneously , and getting their little fee from each of them .
Not the mention the damage to their reputation if it were discovered ( there is great competition amongst online poker sites .
) There can be no 100 \ % guarantees but , given the large number of people analyzing the games for statistical and behavioral discrepancies , it will be hard to pull something like that off .
The Absolute Poker scandal [ nytimes.com ] shows that cheating will be detected.Also , the major online poker sites do their best to detect bots , collusions and other forms of cheating using their own server-side analysis .
After all , nobody in their right mind wants to kill the goose that lays golden eggs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have obviously not done any gambling online.
A large percentage, perhaps even the majority of online gambling, is poker.
When you go to an online poker site, you are not playing against the house/online gambling site.
You are playing against other players, and the gambling site gets its money by charging a fee, a percentage of the buy in in a tournament or a percentage of the pot.I wouldn't even put poker in the same "gambling" category as casino games (online or otherwise), as it was clearly demonstrated that in poker skill dominates luck [cigital.com].Sure, there is the element of chance but then, it is also present in contract bridge and in backgammon and you don't hear those referred to as gambling.Of course there is no 100\% guarantee that the online gambling site is not putting an employee that can see the cards in on a table, but that would really net them so little money in comparison to hosting 100's or even thousands of tables simultaneously, and getting their little fee from each of them.
Not the mention the damage to their reputation if it were discovered (there is great competition amongst online poker sites.
)There can be no 100\% guarantees but, given the large number of people analyzing the games for statistical and behavioral discrepancies, it will be hard to pull something like that off.
The Absolute Poker scandal [nytimes.com] shows that cheating will be detected.Also, the major online poker sites do their best to detect bots, collusions and other forms of cheating using their own server-side analysis.
After all, nobody in their right mind wants to kill the goose that lays golden eggs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31063584</id>
	<title>Re:Legalizing it just moves it overseas</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1265660400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you make drugs legal, it just give drug cartels incentive to go overseas to avoid paying taxes whatsoever.  Huh?  You see how what you wrote doesn't make sense?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you make drugs legal , it just give drug cartels incentive to go overseas to avoid paying taxes whatsoever .
Huh ? You see how what you wrote does n't make sense ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you make drugs legal, it just give drug cartels incentive to go overseas to avoid paying taxes whatsoever.
Huh?  You see how what you wrote doesn't make sense?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31066528</id>
	<title>VAC</title>
	<author>The MAZZTer</author>
	<datestamp>1265629740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyone else read the title and think it was about Steam VAC bans?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone else read the title and think it was about Steam VAC bans ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone else read the title and think it was about Steam VAC bans?
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31062224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31061330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31062152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31061250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31067672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31071202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31064788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31061352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31064020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31066506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31061216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31063584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31063052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31063210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31063526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31064216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31063540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31064296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31061150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31063156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31061534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31069270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31063762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31065380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31063412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31061294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31062838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31067536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31062818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31061852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31061374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_2114253_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31064494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_2114253.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059928
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_2114253.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31063526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31062224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31071202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31061330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060954
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31063762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31062818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059964
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31063052
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060816
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31063156
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31066506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31061852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059894
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060158
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060346
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060390
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31061352
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31063540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31064494
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31062838
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060272
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31065380
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31061216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059980
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060358
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060996
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31064216
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31064788
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060190
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31061250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31062152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31064020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_2114253.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060066
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31061374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060096
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_2114253.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059884
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_2114253.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060340
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_2114253.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31063584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31069270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31061150
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31064296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059830
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060732
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31063210
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31063412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31067536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060514
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31061534
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31067672
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_2114253.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31060014
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_2114253.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31059918
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_2114253.31061294
</commentlist>
</conversation>
