<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_15_1914251</id>
	<title>Google, Yahoo and Others Fight the Aussie Filter</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1266262080000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>TheFrunj writes <i>"In the wake of an attack on Australian Government websites comes a statement from a joint group of companies banding together to <a href="http://www.atomicmpc.com.au/News/167294,alia-join-forces-with-inspire-foundation-google-and-yahoo-to-battle-senator-conroys-internet-filter.aspx">oppose Senator Conroy's infamous Internet Filter</a>. AtomicMPC has posted the statement up on their site: 'We, the Australian Library and Information Association, Google, Inspire Foundation and Yahoo! agree that Australia needs to take effective  action to ensure that internet users, and particularly children, have a safe experience online.' Backed by the weight of the Inspire Foundation, Google and Yahoo, this is a good sign for the local and international community that will hopefully spark some positive reaction."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>TheFrunj writes " In the wake of an attack on Australian Government websites comes a statement from a joint group of companies banding together to oppose Senator Conroy 's infamous Internet Filter .
AtomicMPC has posted the statement up on their site : 'We , the Australian Library and Information Association , Google , Inspire Foundation and Yahoo !
agree that Australia needs to take effective action to ensure that internet users , and particularly children , have a safe experience online .
' Backed by the weight of the Inspire Foundation , Google and Yahoo , this is a good sign for the local and international community that will hopefully spark some positive reaction .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TheFrunj writes "In the wake of an attack on Australian Government websites comes a statement from a joint group of companies banding together to oppose Senator Conroy's infamous Internet Filter.
AtomicMPC has posted the statement up on their site: 'We, the Australian Library and Information Association, Google, Inspire Foundation and Yahoo!
agree that Australia needs to take effective  action to ensure that internet users, and particularly children, have a safe experience online.
' Backed by the weight of the Inspire Foundation, Google and Yahoo, this is a good sign for the local and international community that will hopefully spark some positive reaction.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31151692</id>
	<title>From the article...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266249780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This is an advertising supported site. Please consider disabling your ad blocking software on Atomic!</p></div></blockquote><p>

My internet connection is not for you to advertise on.  If you want to advertise to me on my bandwidth, you can pay for it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an advertising supported site .
Please consider disabling your ad blocking software on Atomic !
My internet connection is not for you to advertise on .
If you want to advertise to me on my bandwidth , you can pay for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an advertising supported site.
Please consider disabling your ad blocking software on Atomic!
My internet connection is not for you to advertise on.
If you want to advertise to me on my bandwidth, you can pay for it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31149376</id>
	<title>Re:As a parent, I would like to make a suggestion.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266232260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am one of 12 children in my family.</p><p>My parents had absolutely no problem providing proper supervision, parenting, and care for all of my siblings and myself.</p><p>I have to say, as much as I sympathise with you having 2 children with learning difficulties, that if you cannot properly parent 4 children than perhaps you just aren't that good at parenting.</p><p>Perhaps you should look at getting assistance. That doesn't mean you get to be lazy and have the government remove freedom from everybody else just because you can't handle your own household.</p><p>I'd suggest you start with spending less time on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. and the internet - that's at least an hour or two each night which you can use to look after your children instead of trolling popular forums with your own inadequacies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am one of 12 children in my family.My parents had absolutely no problem providing proper supervision , parenting , and care for all of my siblings and myself.I have to say , as much as I sympathise with you having 2 children with learning difficulties , that if you can not properly parent 4 children than perhaps you just are n't that good at parenting.Perhaps you should look at getting assistance .
That does n't mean you get to be lazy and have the government remove freedom from everybody else just because you ca n't handle your own household.I 'd suggest you start with spending less time on / .
and the internet - that 's at least an hour or two each night which you can use to look after your children instead of trolling popular forums with your own inadequacies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am one of 12 children in my family.My parents had absolutely no problem providing proper supervision, parenting, and care for all of my siblings and myself.I have to say, as much as I sympathise with you having 2 children with learning difficulties, that if you cannot properly parent 4 children than perhaps you just aren't that good at parenting.Perhaps you should look at getting assistance.
That doesn't mean you get to be lazy and have the government remove freedom from everybody else just because you can't handle your own household.I'd suggest you start with spending less time on /.
and the internet - that's at least an hour or two each night which you can use to look after your children instead of trolling popular forums with your own inadequacies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31150144</id>
	<title>Wait what?</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1266236040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did the submitter READ that quote?</p><blockquote><div><p>We, the Australian Library and Information Association, Google, Inspire Foundation and Yahoo! agree that Australia needs to take effective action to ensure that internet users, and particularly children, have a safe experience online.'</p></div></blockquote><p>That's not opposing the legislation, it's commending it!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did the submitter READ that quote ? We , the Australian Library and Information Association , Google , Inspire Foundation and Yahoo !
agree that Australia needs to take effective action to ensure that internet users , and particularly children , have a safe experience online .
'That 's not opposing the legislation , it 's commending it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did the submitter READ that quote?We, the Australian Library and Information Association, Google, Inspire Foundation and Yahoo!
agree that Australia needs to take effective action to ensure that internet users, and particularly children, have a safe experience online.
'That's not opposing the legislation, it's commending it!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31151558</id>
	<title>Re:I used to be opposed but ...</title>
	<author>Philip\_the\_physicist</author>
	<datestamp>1266248400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>- pedophiles etc have an addiction and/or psychological problem and they do not reason the same way as a sane person</p></div><p>There are mental health laws which can be used to keep someone in a secure hospital if they are a danger to society, and prisons for those who actually abuse children. Also, looking at RC material  != dangerous to the public.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>- you can't let the very people who profit from attracting people to sites to self regulate, that is where the government has to step in</p></div><p>The operators of pay pron sites aren't interested in children because they can't pay, they just drain bandwidth for no return. teenagers are more likely to use ad-supported sites, and should figure out that clicking on ads is a bad idea.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Parents are not internet experts. They do not have the skills to implement content filtering. The experts are the internet companies; but they have a vested interest in not filtering. So that leaves government and the content filtering software companies (but parents don't have the skills to select which program to buy - we just have to do our best).</p></div><p>The AU government used to offer a home filter, the current government scrapped it. Before that, only 5\% or so of families used it, even after several ad campaigns. Most comprehensive anti-malware suites include a filter, which can be trivially configured using a point-and-drool interface. Circumventing this filter is no easier than circumventing an ISP-level filter, and it probably is harder (since at home, proxies, google translate, and so on can be blocked as well).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Filtering is an imperfect science. A progressive percentage reduction in accessibility is how you break down the grouping the internet has given to otherwise isolated cases of pedophiles etc. There will be sites blocked which should not. Considering how little of the complete internet is actually viewed by any individual, I can't imagine how you would know the difference - it certainly wasn't there a mere 15 or so years ago.</p></div><p>I don't see how that makes an arbitrary blacklist any better. Just because you won't notice the pages are missing doesn't mean those interested in issues such as anti-abortion or pro-euthanasia campaigning wouldn't.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Companies web sites will change how they operate and check their site availability in advance - not unlike registering a business. Businesses have to manage these sorts of hurdles all the time - it is a risk of business and hence the source of return.</p></div><p>It isn't a source of return, it is a pointless nuisance, especially since single pages can be blocked.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It is correct for governments to classify the content of material at the internet companies and ISPs. Magazines are controlled this way - the creator (hence profit maker) and distribution chain (the other profit makers) had to meet Australian standards. The most obvious example is 'sealed section' magazines and their location within newsagencies. The internet companies are not fighting for your freedom; they want to avoid the restriction that was placed on print media.</p></div><p>There is a difference between classification, which is purely informational, and censorship based on such classification. I have no problem with banning R, X, and RC material on television, for example, nor with having a watershed to prevent MA and M material being shown during times when children are likely to be watching TV unsupervised (3PM-6PM in particular). The same with magazines: ordianry newsagents have to sell porn mags under plain covers, adult shops don't need to because anyone going into one would know what they are going to see, and children shouldn't be there. Nonetheless, it isn't that hard for an under-age teenager to get into one (buying anything would be another matter, of course), but the difference is that they are deliberately seeking out the material, not passively being shown it.</p><p>The internet is analogous to RL here. You don't come across porn unexpectedly unless you are already doing something questionable (searching for CD-keys and cracks, for example). Most general sites don't host porn because it is bad for business, or is irrelevant to their business, and porn sites aren't going to advertise themselves as "Free educational flash games" or the like, because that wouldn't help get paying customers.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The other complaint about the Australian system is that the black list is confidential. I feel this is wrong, but thinking about it - how else could it work? Making the list public defeats the purpose.</p></div><p>If the filter could stop people who didn't know a site was on the filter getting to it, it will stop someone who does know it is on the filter getting there too. After all, if you were trying to get to sites you think might be filtered, you are going to be using an offshore proxy, not just browsing directly and risking getting logged by the filter when you do hit a filtered site.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I know people, as I, believe there should be freedoms. But there is certainly material that definitely should not be available to children and, on an internet scale, a huge number of adults.</p></div><p>Which adults? You? Me? The "bad people"?</p><p>Furthermore, does my reading something harm non-consenting third parties? Using the information, possibly. Producing it, possibly. But reading it? Very unlikely, methinks.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Probably the biggest problem was that the Governments reacted too slowly and it is painful to fix the problem now.</p></div><p>Personally, I don't think that was a problem. The pain is good, because it will hopefully make more people think and question the premises on which censorship is based.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But it was done for TV and print.</p></div><p>Indeed it was. But TV is transmitted using a public resource (the part of the spectrum it is transmitted on), and uses that resources exclusively, so it is reasonable to regulate its use. Modern censorship of print comes from a mixture of self-censorship, based on what bookshops think will help their business, and the moral crusaders of the Victorian era, the same mob who were opposed to masturbation, the sight of women's ankles, and other such terrible evils. The first is a sensible business consideration which won't go away even in the absence of government intervention, but the second is an unfortunate relic which I would not be sorry to see gone.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The fact of the matter is that the amount of unrestricted extreme material has exploded since the internet.</p></div><p>It doesn't matter how much there is, if there is any there it can be found, but only if you want to look for it. "[E]xtreme material" doesn't hunt you down.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>- pedophiles etc have an addiction and/or psychological problem and they do not reason the same way as a sane personThere are mental health laws which can be used to keep someone in a secure hospital if they are a danger to society , and prisons for those who actually abuse children .
Also , looking at RC material ! = dangerous to the public.- you ca n't let the very people who profit from attracting people to sites to self regulate , that is where the government has to step inThe operators of pay pron sites are n't interested in children because they ca n't pay , they just drain bandwidth for no return .
teenagers are more likely to use ad-supported sites , and should figure out that clicking on ads is a bad idea.Parents are not internet experts .
They do not have the skills to implement content filtering .
The experts are the internet companies ; but they have a vested interest in not filtering .
So that leaves government and the content filtering software companies ( but parents do n't have the skills to select which program to buy - we just have to do our best ) .The AU government used to offer a home filter , the current government scrapped it .
Before that , only 5 \ % or so of families used it , even after several ad campaigns .
Most comprehensive anti-malware suites include a filter , which can be trivially configured using a point-and-drool interface .
Circumventing this filter is no easier than circumventing an ISP-level filter , and it probably is harder ( since at home , proxies , google translate , and so on can be blocked as well ) .Filtering is an imperfect science .
A progressive percentage reduction in accessibility is how you break down the grouping the internet has given to otherwise isolated cases of pedophiles etc .
There will be sites blocked which should not .
Considering how little of the complete internet is actually viewed by any individual , I ca n't imagine how you would know the difference - it certainly was n't there a mere 15 or so years ago.I do n't see how that makes an arbitrary blacklist any better .
Just because you wo n't notice the pages are missing does n't mean those interested in issues such as anti-abortion or pro-euthanasia campaigning would n't.Companies web sites will change how they operate and check their site availability in advance - not unlike registering a business .
Businesses have to manage these sorts of hurdles all the time - it is a risk of business and hence the source of return.It is n't a source of return , it is a pointless nuisance , especially since single pages can be blocked.It is correct for governments to classify the content of material at the internet companies and ISPs .
Magazines are controlled this way - the creator ( hence profit maker ) and distribution chain ( the other profit makers ) had to meet Australian standards .
The most obvious example is 'sealed section ' magazines and their location within newsagencies .
The internet companies are not fighting for your freedom ; they want to avoid the restriction that was placed on print media.There is a difference between classification , which is purely informational , and censorship based on such classification .
I have no problem with banning R , X , and RC material on television , for example , nor with having a watershed to prevent MA and M material being shown during times when children are likely to be watching TV unsupervised ( 3PM-6PM in particular ) .
The same with magazines : ordianry newsagents have to sell porn mags under plain covers , adult shops do n't need to because anyone going into one would know what they are going to see , and children should n't be there .
Nonetheless , it is n't that hard for an under-age teenager to get into one ( buying anything would be another matter , of course ) , but the difference is that they are deliberately seeking out the material , not passively being shown it.The internet is analogous to RL here .
You do n't come across porn unexpectedly unless you are already doing something questionable ( searching for CD-keys and cracks , for example ) .
Most general sites do n't host porn because it is bad for business , or is irrelevant to their business , and porn sites are n't going to advertise themselves as " Free educational flash games " or the like , because that would n't help get paying customers.The other complaint about the Australian system is that the black list is confidential .
I feel this is wrong , but thinking about it - how else could it work ?
Making the list public defeats the purpose.If the filter could stop people who did n't know a site was on the filter getting to it , it will stop someone who does know it is on the filter getting there too .
After all , if you were trying to get to sites you think might be filtered , you are going to be using an offshore proxy , not just browsing directly and risking getting logged by the filter when you do hit a filtered site.I know people , as I , believe there should be freedoms .
But there is certainly material that definitely should not be available to children and , on an internet scale , a huge number of adults.Which adults ?
You ? Me ?
The " bad people " ? Furthermore , does my reading something harm non-consenting third parties ?
Using the information , possibly .
Producing it , possibly .
But reading it ?
Very unlikely , methinks.Probably the biggest problem was that the Governments reacted too slowly and it is painful to fix the problem now.Personally , I do n't think that was a problem .
The pain is good , because it will hopefully make more people think and question the premises on which censorship is based.But it was done for TV and print.Indeed it was .
But TV is transmitted using a public resource ( the part of the spectrum it is transmitted on ) , and uses that resources exclusively , so it is reasonable to regulate its use .
Modern censorship of print comes from a mixture of self-censorship , based on what bookshops think will help their business , and the moral crusaders of the Victorian era , the same mob who were opposed to masturbation , the sight of women 's ankles , and other such terrible evils .
The first is a sensible business consideration which wo n't go away even in the absence of government intervention , but the second is an unfortunate relic which I would not be sorry to see gone.The fact of the matter is that the amount of unrestricted extreme material has exploded since the internet.It does n't matter how much there is , if there is any there it can be found , but only if you want to look for it .
" [ E ] xtreme material " does n't hunt you down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- pedophiles etc have an addiction and/or psychological problem and they do not reason the same way as a sane personThere are mental health laws which can be used to keep someone in a secure hospital if they are a danger to society, and prisons for those who actually abuse children.
Also, looking at RC material  != dangerous to the public.- you can't let the very people who profit from attracting people to sites to self regulate, that is where the government has to step inThe operators of pay pron sites aren't interested in children because they can't pay, they just drain bandwidth for no return.
teenagers are more likely to use ad-supported sites, and should figure out that clicking on ads is a bad idea.Parents are not internet experts.
They do not have the skills to implement content filtering.
The experts are the internet companies; but they have a vested interest in not filtering.
So that leaves government and the content filtering software companies (but parents don't have the skills to select which program to buy - we just have to do our best).The AU government used to offer a home filter, the current government scrapped it.
Before that, only 5\% or so of families used it, even after several ad campaigns.
Most comprehensive anti-malware suites include a filter, which can be trivially configured using a point-and-drool interface.
Circumventing this filter is no easier than circumventing an ISP-level filter, and it probably is harder (since at home, proxies, google translate, and so on can be blocked as well).Filtering is an imperfect science.
A progressive percentage reduction in accessibility is how you break down the grouping the internet has given to otherwise isolated cases of pedophiles etc.
There will be sites blocked which should not.
Considering how little of the complete internet is actually viewed by any individual, I can't imagine how you would know the difference - it certainly wasn't there a mere 15 or so years ago.I don't see how that makes an arbitrary blacklist any better.
Just because you won't notice the pages are missing doesn't mean those interested in issues such as anti-abortion or pro-euthanasia campaigning wouldn't.Companies web sites will change how they operate and check their site availability in advance - not unlike registering a business.
Businesses have to manage these sorts of hurdles all the time - it is a risk of business and hence the source of return.It isn't a source of return, it is a pointless nuisance, especially since single pages can be blocked.It is correct for governments to classify the content of material at the internet companies and ISPs.
Magazines are controlled this way - the creator (hence profit maker) and distribution chain (the other profit makers) had to meet Australian standards.
The most obvious example is 'sealed section' magazines and their location within newsagencies.
The internet companies are not fighting for your freedom; they want to avoid the restriction that was placed on print media.There is a difference between classification, which is purely informational, and censorship based on such classification.
I have no problem with banning R, X, and RC material on television, for example, nor with having a watershed to prevent MA and M material being shown during times when children are likely to be watching TV unsupervised (3PM-6PM in particular).
The same with magazines: ordianry newsagents have to sell porn mags under plain covers, adult shops don't need to because anyone going into one would know what they are going to see, and children shouldn't be there.
Nonetheless, it isn't that hard for an under-age teenager to get into one (buying anything would be another matter, of course), but the difference is that they are deliberately seeking out the material, not passively being shown it.The internet is analogous to RL here.
You don't come across porn unexpectedly unless you are already doing something questionable (searching for CD-keys and cracks, for example).
Most general sites don't host porn because it is bad for business, or is irrelevant to their business, and porn sites aren't going to advertise themselves as "Free educational flash games" or the like, because that wouldn't help get paying customers.The other complaint about the Australian system is that the black list is confidential.
I feel this is wrong, but thinking about it - how else could it work?
Making the list public defeats the purpose.If the filter could stop people who didn't know a site was on the filter getting to it, it will stop someone who does know it is on the filter getting there too.
After all, if you were trying to get to sites you think might be filtered, you are going to be using an offshore proxy, not just browsing directly and risking getting logged by the filter when you do hit a filtered site.I know people, as I, believe there should be freedoms.
But there is certainly material that definitely should not be available to children and, on an internet scale, a huge number of adults.Which adults?
You? Me?
The "bad people"?Furthermore, does my reading something harm non-consenting third parties?
Using the information, possibly.
Producing it, possibly.
But reading it?
Very unlikely, methinks.Probably the biggest problem was that the Governments reacted too slowly and it is painful to fix the problem now.Personally, I don't think that was a problem.
The pain is good, because it will hopefully make more people think and question the premises on which censorship is based.But it was done for TV and print.Indeed it was.
But TV is transmitted using a public resource (the part of the spectrum it is transmitted on), and uses that resources exclusively, so it is reasonable to regulate its use.
Modern censorship of print comes from a mixture of self-censorship, based on what bookshops think will help their business, and the moral crusaders of the Victorian era, the same mob who were opposed to masturbation, the sight of women's ankles, and other such terrible evils.
The first is a sensible business consideration which won't go away even in the absence of government intervention, but the second is an unfortunate relic which I would not be sorry to see gone.The fact of the matter is that the amount of unrestricted extreme material has exploded since the internet.It doesn't matter how much there is, if there is any there it can be found, but only if you want to look for it.
"[E]xtreme material" doesn't hunt you down.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31149766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31149852</id>
	<title>Re:As a parent, I would like to make a suggestion.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266234360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe you shouldn't have had 4 kids then?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe you should n't have had 4 kids then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe you shouldn't have had 4 kids then?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147568</id>
	<title>Conroy has his own agenda</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266266520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and will not listen to reason, as he has repeatedly demonstrated. I'm not entirely clear what that agenda is, beyond being a douche. Perhaps he's in bed with the media organisations, and the filter censoring kiddie porn is only a side issue, while the real game is filtering music/tv/movie downloads. Perhaps he was teased as a child and this is his revenge on society. Either way he is an irresponsible man and I hope he's now infamous enough that people will vote him out at the next election (though I suspect I hope for too much).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and will not listen to reason , as he has repeatedly demonstrated .
I 'm not entirely clear what that agenda is , beyond being a douche .
Perhaps he 's in bed with the media organisations , and the filter censoring kiddie porn is only a side issue , while the real game is filtering music/tv/movie downloads .
Perhaps he was teased as a child and this is his revenge on society .
Either way he is an irresponsible man and I hope he 's now infamous enough that people will vote him out at the next election ( though I suspect I hope for too much ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and will not listen to reason, as he has repeatedly demonstrated.
I'm not entirely clear what that agenda is, beyond being a douche.
Perhaps he's in bed with the media organisations, and the filter censoring kiddie porn is only a side issue, while the real game is filtering music/tv/movie downloads.
Perhaps he was teased as a child and this is his revenge on society.
Either way he is an irresponsible man and I hope he's now infamous enough that people will vote him out at the next election (though I suspect I hope for too much).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31149634</id>
	<title>What a waste ....</title>
	<author>zuperduperman</author>
	<datestamp>1266233280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;  We, the Australian Library and Information Association, Google, Inspire Foundation and Yahoo! agree<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>They get Google AND Yahoo to support this initiative and then lead off with "the Australian Library and Information Association".   Nobody will even read past those words before they ditch this statement as irrelevant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; We , the Australian Library and Information Association , Google , Inspire Foundation and Yahoo !
agree ...They get Google AND Yahoo to support this initiative and then lead off with " the Australian Library and Information Association " .
Nobody will even read past those words before they ditch this statement as irrelevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;  We, the Australian Library and Information Association, Google, Inspire Foundation and Yahoo!
agree ...They get Google AND Yahoo to support this initiative and then lead off with "the Australian Library and Information Association".
Nobody will even read past those words before they ditch this statement as irrelevant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147658</id>
	<title>Re:As a parent, I would like to make a suggestion.</title>
	<author>martas</author>
	<datestamp>1266267060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>or you could just let them do whatever the fuck they want. even porn gets old eventually. at least for a while. maybe a few hours. or minutes... sorry, gotta go!</htmltext>
<tokenext>or you could just let them do whatever the fuck they want .
even porn gets old eventually .
at least for a while .
maybe a few hours .
or minutes... sorry , got ta go !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or you could just let them do whatever the fuck they want.
even porn gets old eventually.
at least for a while.
maybe a few hours.
or minutes... sorry, gotta go!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147712</id>
	<title>Actual statement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266267360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The actual statement can be found here:

<a href="http://www.alia.org.au/internetfiltering/Core.principles.for.effective.action.for.a.safer.internet.pdf" title="alia.org.au" rel="nofollow">http://www.alia.org.au/internetfiltering/Core.principles.for.effective.action.for.a.safer.internet.pdf</a> [alia.org.au]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The actual statement can be found here : http : //www.alia.org.au/internetfiltering/Core.principles.for.effective.action.for.a.safer.internet.pdf [ alia.org.au ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The actual statement can be found here:

http://www.alia.org.au/internetfiltering/Core.principles.for.effective.action.for.a.safer.internet.pdf [alia.org.au]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147810</id>
	<title>Re:What about china?</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1266224700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>China would drag me with him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>China would drag me with him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China would drag me with him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147848</id>
	<title>Re:As a parent, I would like to make a suggestion.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266224880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm, those are your babies.  It's your job to raise them and yours alone.  You are not a victim here so start parenting and stop sounding like one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm , those are your babies .
It 's your job to raise them and yours alone .
You are not a victim here so start parenting and stop sounding like one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm, those are your babies.
It's your job to raise them and yours alone.
You are not a victim here so start parenting and stop sounding like one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148150</id>
	<title>Re:But the problem is</title>
	<author>nextekcarl</author>
	<datestamp>1266226380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that is the best, most concise explanation for the problem in this whole thread.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that is the best , most concise explanation for the problem in this whole thread .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that is the best, most concise explanation for the problem in this whole thread.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147624</id>
	<title>Everybody poops...</title>
	<author>snapple)(two</author>
	<datestamp>1266266820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...but you didn't here it from me</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...but you did n't here it from me</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but you didn't here it from me</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31150702</id>
	<title>Re:Conroy has his own agenda</title>
	<author>Techman83</author>
	<datestamp>1266239940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Something tells me he may just be in bed -&gt; <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/stephen-conroy-cold-on-kerry-stokes-talk/story-e6frgczf-1225830260479" title="theaustralian.com.au">Stephen Conroy Cold on Kerry Stokes talk</a> [theaustralian.com.au]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Something tells me he may just be in bed - &gt; Stephen Conroy Cold on Kerry Stokes talk [ theaustralian.com.au ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something tells me he may just be in bed -&gt; Stephen Conroy Cold on Kerry Stokes talk [theaustralian.com.au]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148094</id>
	<title>Re:What about china?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266226080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you lived in a box all your life?</p><p>Australia = elected government.<br>China = military dictatorship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you lived in a box all your life ? Australia = elected government.China = military dictatorship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you lived in a box all your life?Australia = elected government.China = military dictatorship.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31149806</id>
	<title>Re:As a parent, I would like to make a suggestion.</title>
	<author>trouser</author>
	<datestamp>1266234180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you can find the time to troll on Slashdot you can find the time to supervise your children.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you can find the time to troll on Slashdot you can find the time to supervise your children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can find the time to troll on Slashdot you can find the time to supervise your children.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148876</id>
	<title>Yay /b/!!!</title>
	<author>nitrowing</author>
	<datestamp>1266229920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>First off, yay to the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/b/tards - I had been watching this a few days before it started and am proud of them.

Second, this is from a long time ago and a view I whole-heartedly agree with.

Written by the Rotten.com Staff,

    The definition of obscenity, according to the Supreme Court and known informally as the Miller test, is:

        * must appeal to the prurient interest of the average person
        * must describe sexual conduct in a way that is "patently offensive" to community standards, and
        * when taken as a whole, it "must lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value"

    Certain people (including parents and schoolteachers) have complained to us and stated that rotten.com should not be "allowed" on the net, since children can view images on our site.

    One US schoolteacher wrote us a very angry email that complained some of her students had bookmarked images on this site, that our site shouldn't be on the net, and other claptrap.

    This is our respone. The net is not a babysitter! Children should not be roaming the Internet unsupervised any more than they should be roaming the streets of New York City unsupervised.

    We cannot dumb the Internet down to the level of playground. Rotten dot com serves as a beacon to demonstrate that censorship of the Internet is impractical, unethical, and wrong. To censor this site, it is necessary to censor medical texts, history texts, evidence rooms, courtrooms, art museums, libraries and other sources of information vital to functioning of free society.

    Nearly all of the images we have online are not even prurient, and would thus not fall under any definition of obscenity. Any images which we have of a sexual nature are in a context which render them far from obscene, in any United States jurisdiction. Some of the images may be offensive, but that has never been a crime. Life is sometimes offensive. You have to expect that.

    The images we find most obscene are those from book burnings.

    Please remember that no child has access to the Internet without the active consent of an adult. And absolutely no child should be left on the Internet alone. Supervision of children remains the responsibility of parents and teachers, as it always has and always will.

    The rotten staff, April 1997</htmltext>
<tokenext>First off , yay to the /b/tards - I had been watching this a few days before it started and am proud of them .
Second , this is from a long time ago and a view I whole-heartedly agree with .
Written by the Rotten.com Staff , The definition of obscenity , according to the Supreme Court and known informally as the Miller test , is : * must appeal to the prurient interest of the average person * must describe sexual conduct in a way that is " patently offensive " to community standards , and * when taken as a whole , it " must lack serious literary , artistic , political or scientific value " Certain people ( including parents and schoolteachers ) have complained to us and stated that rotten.com should not be " allowed " on the net , since children can view images on our site .
One US schoolteacher wrote us a very angry email that complained some of her students had bookmarked images on this site , that our site should n't be on the net , and other claptrap .
This is our respone .
The net is not a babysitter !
Children should not be roaming the Internet unsupervised any more than they should be roaming the streets of New York City unsupervised .
We can not dumb the Internet down to the level of playground .
Rotten dot com serves as a beacon to demonstrate that censorship of the Internet is impractical , unethical , and wrong .
To censor this site , it is necessary to censor medical texts , history texts , evidence rooms , courtrooms , art museums , libraries and other sources of information vital to functioning of free society .
Nearly all of the images we have online are not even prurient , and would thus not fall under any definition of obscenity .
Any images which we have of a sexual nature are in a context which render them far from obscene , in any United States jurisdiction .
Some of the images may be offensive , but that has never been a crime .
Life is sometimes offensive .
You have to expect that .
The images we find most obscene are those from book burnings .
Please remember that no child has access to the Internet without the active consent of an adult .
And absolutely no child should be left on the Internet alone .
Supervision of children remains the responsibility of parents and teachers , as it always has and always will .
The rotten staff , April 1997</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First off, yay to the /b/tards - I had been watching this a few days before it started and am proud of them.
Second, this is from a long time ago and a view I whole-heartedly agree with.
Written by the Rotten.com Staff,

    The definition of obscenity, according to the Supreme Court and known informally as the Miller test, is:

        * must appeal to the prurient interest of the average person
        * must describe sexual conduct in a way that is "patently offensive" to community standards, and
        * when taken as a whole, it "must lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value"

    Certain people (including parents and schoolteachers) have complained to us and stated that rotten.com should not be "allowed" on the net, since children can view images on our site.
One US schoolteacher wrote us a very angry email that complained some of her students had bookmarked images on this site, that our site shouldn't be on the net, and other claptrap.
This is our respone.
The net is not a babysitter!
Children should not be roaming the Internet unsupervised any more than they should be roaming the streets of New York City unsupervised.
We cannot dumb the Internet down to the level of playground.
Rotten dot com serves as a beacon to demonstrate that censorship of the Internet is impractical, unethical, and wrong.
To censor this site, it is necessary to censor medical texts, history texts, evidence rooms, courtrooms, art museums, libraries and other sources of information vital to functioning of free society.
Nearly all of the images we have online are not even prurient, and would thus not fall under any definition of obscenity.
Any images which we have of a sexual nature are in a context which render them far from obscene, in any United States jurisdiction.
Some of the images may be offensive, but that has never been a crime.
Life is sometimes offensive.
You have to expect that.
The images we find most obscene are those from book burnings.
Please remember that no child has access to the Internet without the active consent of an adult.
And absolutely no child should be left on the Internet alone.
Supervision of children remains the responsibility of parents and teachers, as it always has and always will.
The rotten staff, April 1997</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31165630</id>
	<title>Re:Conroy has his own agenda</title>
	<author>ekhben</author>
	<datestamp>1266347280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most voters are unaware of this issue.  For most of that majority, awareness of this issue takes a very distant back seat stacked against working conditions, taxation, health care, infrastructure, education, and a whole long list of other matters.  For most of that majority of that majority, all issues take a very distant back seat to which party your father voted for.

</p><p>For the few people who care about this issue enough for it to affect their vote, they have two choices: Liberal or Labour.  Neither party is showing any interest in listening to industry or community, so it doesn't seem to make a difference.

</p><p>The Australian election system is set up such that voting for a third party really is throwing your vote away.  If your preferred candidate is not successful on the first round, that vote is discarded and your second preference is instilled.  So in effect, you vote for either Liberal or Labour, and any other marks you put on the paper are just chicken scratches.

</p><p>Sometimes I draw on an extra box and vote for Optimus Prime.  No luck so far.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most voters are unaware of this issue .
For most of that majority , awareness of this issue takes a very distant back seat stacked against working conditions , taxation , health care , infrastructure , education , and a whole long list of other matters .
For most of that majority of that majority , all issues take a very distant back seat to which party your father voted for .
For the few people who care about this issue enough for it to affect their vote , they have two choices : Liberal or Labour .
Neither party is showing any interest in listening to industry or community , so it does n't seem to make a difference .
The Australian election system is set up such that voting for a third party really is throwing your vote away .
If your preferred candidate is not successful on the first round , that vote is discarded and your second preference is instilled .
So in effect , you vote for either Liberal or Labour , and any other marks you put on the paper are just chicken scratches .
Sometimes I draw on an extra box and vote for Optimus Prime .
No luck so far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most voters are unaware of this issue.
For most of that majority, awareness of this issue takes a very distant back seat stacked against working conditions, taxation, health care, infrastructure, education, and a whole long list of other matters.
For most of that majority of that majority, all issues take a very distant back seat to which party your father voted for.
For the few people who care about this issue enough for it to affect their vote, they have two choices: Liberal or Labour.
Neither party is showing any interest in listening to industry or community, so it doesn't seem to make a difference.
The Australian election system is set up such that voting for a third party really is throwing your vote away.
If your preferred candidate is not successful on the first round, that vote is discarded and your second preference is instilled.
So in effect, you vote for either Liberal or Labour, and any other marks you put on the paper are just chicken scratches.
Sometimes I draw on an extra box and vote for Optimus Prime.
No luck so far.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147958</id>
	<title>Re:But the problem is</title>
	<author>Jeng</author>
	<datestamp>1266225480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Definition of safe while I was growing up was making sure none of the scrapes and cuts got infected.</p><p>Definition of safe now days is to not get any cuts or scrapes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Definition of safe while I was growing up was making sure none of the scrapes and cuts got infected.Definition of safe now days is to not get any cuts or scrapes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Definition of safe while I was growing up was making sure none of the scrapes and cuts got infected.Definition of safe now days is to not get any cuts or scrapes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31151214</id>
	<title>Re:As a parent, I would like to make a suggestion.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266244800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I realize that you can't watch your kids all day.  It is unrealistic to expect otherwise.</p><p>You must realize that this is no justification for taking important freedoms away from adults.  It is equally unrealistic to expect otherwise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I realize that you ca n't watch your kids all day .
It is unrealistic to expect otherwise.You must realize that this is no justification for taking important freedoms away from adults .
It is equally unrealistic to expect otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I realize that you can't watch your kids all day.
It is unrealistic to expect otherwise.You must realize that this is no justification for taking important freedoms away from adults.
It is equally unrealistic to expect otherwise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148020</id>
	<title>Children</title>
	<author>HalAtWork</author>
	<datestamp>1266225720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let parents worry about what their children are exposed to.  If they're not already doing that, it's neglect, and perhaps something else should be done about the parents' carelessness.  If the government don't want to be attacked, let them filter their internet connections however they want.  Censorship of the general populace's internet connection isn't necessary for either of these cases, and should not even enter into the equation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let parents worry about what their children are exposed to .
If they 're not already doing that , it 's neglect , and perhaps something else should be done about the parents ' carelessness .
If the government do n't want to be attacked , let them filter their internet connections however they want .
Censorship of the general populace 's internet connection is n't necessary for either of these cases , and should not even enter into the equation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let parents worry about what their children are exposed to.
If they're not already doing that, it's neglect, and perhaps something else should be done about the parents' carelessness.
If the government don't want to be attacked, let them filter their internet connections however they want.
Censorship of the general populace's internet connection isn't necessary for either of these cases, and should not even enter into the equation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147646</id>
	<title>These people sure think about children alot</title>
	<author>Duradin</author>
	<datestamp>1266267000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All this thinking about children these people do just doesn't seem healthy. They're probably using all this as a cover so they can think about children like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...that. To be safe we better lock them all up as pedos for thinking about children so much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All this thinking about children these people do just does n't seem healthy .
They 're probably using all this as a cover so they can think about children like ...that .
To be safe we better lock them all up as pedos for thinking about children so much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All this thinking about children these people do just doesn't seem healthy.
They're probably using all this as a cover so they can think about children like ...that.
To be safe we better lock them all up as pedos for thinking about children so much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31149762</id>
	<title>Re:These people sure think about children alot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266234000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They should start thinking about their children. For example about the part where they grow up and become adults some day. I have a little daughter and as she grows up I want her to be able to enjoy the same kind of freedom I was able to enjoy. I don't want her to have to live in a censorship state.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They should start thinking about their children .
For example about the part where they grow up and become adults some day .
I have a little daughter and as she grows up I want her to be able to enjoy the same kind of freedom I was able to enjoy .
I do n't want her to have to live in a censorship state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should start thinking about their children.
For example about the part where they grow up and become adults some day.
I have a little daughter and as she grows up I want her to be able to enjoy the same kind of freedom I was able to enjoy.
I don't want her to have to live in a censorship state.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147622</id>
	<title>I interpret that as....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266266820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"'We, the Australian Library and Information Association, Google, Inspire Foundation and Yahoo! agree that Australia needs to take effective action to ensure that internet users, and particularly children, have a safe experience online.' </i> <br> <br>
So? I read that as they support measures to filter the internet. For the children?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" 'We , the Australian Library and Information Association , Google , Inspire Foundation and Yahoo !
agree that Australia needs to take effective action to ensure that internet users , and particularly children , have a safe experience online .
' So ?
I read that as they support measures to filter the internet .
For the children ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"'We, the Australian Library and Information Association, Google, Inspire Foundation and Yahoo!
agree that Australia needs to take effective action to ensure that internet users, and particularly children, have a safe experience online.
'   
So?
I read that as they support measures to filter the internet.
For the children?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147812</id>
	<title>Re:I interpret that as....</title>
	<author>captaindomon</author>
	<datestamp>1266224700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have to understand the politics. If they started their letter with "We think your idea is stupid and won't work and we won't support it" they would look like trouble causers and they would be dismissed from the discussion immediately. If they start the letter with "We understand why you are concerned, it's good to care about kids, we care about them too, let's work together to figure out the best way to do this correctly without trying to block the internet at the national level" they are going to get a lot more support and understanding. You can tell the letter was written by PR type folks, who spent a lot of time on it. It's a good sign, because it means Yahoo and Google are actually concerned at the corporate level, and are thinking seriously about the best way to address this filtering problem, and they're preparing for a long involved process.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to understand the politics .
If they started their letter with " We think your idea is stupid and wo n't work and we wo n't support it " they would look like trouble causers and they would be dismissed from the discussion immediately .
If they start the letter with " We understand why you are concerned , it 's good to care about kids , we care about them too , let 's work together to figure out the best way to do this correctly without trying to block the internet at the national level " they are going to get a lot more support and understanding .
You can tell the letter was written by PR type folks , who spent a lot of time on it .
It 's a good sign , because it means Yahoo and Google are actually concerned at the corporate level , and are thinking seriously about the best way to address this filtering problem , and they 're preparing for a long involved process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to understand the politics.
If they started their letter with "We think your idea is stupid and won't work and we won't support it" they would look like trouble causers and they would be dismissed from the discussion immediately.
If they start the letter with "We understand why you are concerned, it's good to care about kids, we care about them too, let's work together to figure out the best way to do this correctly without trying to block the internet at the national level" they are going to get a lot more support and understanding.
You can tell the letter was written by PR type folks, who spent a lot of time on it.
It's a good sign, because it means Yahoo and Google are actually concerned at the corporate level, and are thinking seriously about the best way to address this filtering problem, and they're preparing for a long involved process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31150164</id>
	<title>Re:I interpret that as....</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1266236160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's just the first paragraph of the statement, essentially leading up to a "BUT".</p><p>The summary quote is just misleadingly picked.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just the first paragraph of the statement , essentially leading up to a " BUT " .The summary quote is just misleadingly picked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just the first paragraph of the statement, essentially leading up to a "BUT".The summary quote is just misleadingly picked.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148984</id>
	<title>Re:I interpret that as....</title>
	<author>GaryPatterson</author>
	<datestamp>1266230580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've never dealt with people on a serious issue before, have you?</p><p>Here's a tip - starting a message by outright denying the validity of the issue will result in anything you say being summarily dismissed. If you're comfortable with being ignored completely, then go nuts.</p><p>There is a good case to make that some support for online child safety is important. How that support is delivered is another matter, and the Australian government is going about this in the wrong way. That the authors of this letter agree that there is an issue (and that's all they're doing in that first sentence) is trivial and does not provide support for the filter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've never dealt with people on a serious issue before , have you ? Here 's a tip - starting a message by outright denying the validity of the issue will result in anything you say being summarily dismissed .
If you 're comfortable with being ignored completely , then go nuts.There is a good case to make that some support for online child safety is important .
How that support is delivered is another matter , and the Australian government is going about this in the wrong way .
That the authors of this letter agree that there is an issue ( and that 's all they 're doing in that first sentence ) is trivial and does not provide support for the filter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've never dealt with people on a serious issue before, have you?Here's a tip - starting a message by outright denying the validity of the issue will result in anything you say being summarily dismissed.
If you're comfortable with being ignored completely, then go nuts.There is a good case to make that some support for online child safety is important.
How that support is delivered is another matter, and the Australian government is going about this in the wrong way.
That the authors of this letter agree that there is an issue (and that's all they're doing in that first sentence) is trivial and does not provide support for the filter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31150574</id>
	<title>Re:Make the Parents Responsible</title>
	<author>kheldan</author>
	<datestamp>1266238980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because that would be a monumental display of common sense -- which is a misnomer anymore, because <i>nobody</i> seems to have any anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because that would be a monumental display of common sense -- which is a misnomer anymore , because nobody seems to have any anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because that would be a monumental display of common sense -- which is a misnomer anymore, because nobody seems to have any anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148908</id>
	<title>Re:As a parent, I would like to make a suggestion.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266230160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right: simple answer to a complex problem - always attractive.</p><p>This would be wonderfully useful in a world where children transition from naive to responsible overnight but here in the real world it takes a few years and during those years they need to learn and grow by experiencing things a graduated step at a time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right : simple answer to a complex problem - always attractive.This would be wonderfully useful in a world where children transition from naive to responsible overnight but here in the real world it takes a few years and during those years they need to learn and grow by experiencing things a graduated step at a time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right: simple answer to a complex problem - always attractive.This would be wonderfully useful in a world where children transition from naive to responsible overnight but here in the real world it takes a few years and during those years they need to learn and grow by experiencing things a graduated step at a time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31151164</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not optimistic</title>
	<author>Philip\_the\_physicist</author>
	<datestamp>1266244320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why I would like to see above-the-line voting abolished, but at the same time add a "no further preferences" option to the ballot (as the first option, to kill a few donkey votes), which, if your vote goes that far down the list, means that your paper is then ignored for the rest of the redistribution. This is better than allowing an incomplete list without a terminator, because the coutners are supposed to try to figure out how you were trying to vote if your paper seems invalid.</p><p>Although counting would be slower and more expensive, senate vote results aren't usually needed for some time anyway, and this would go some way towards improving the quality of election results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why I would like to see above-the-line voting abolished , but at the same time add a " no further preferences " option to the ballot ( as the first option , to kill a few donkey votes ) , which , if your vote goes that far down the list , means that your paper is then ignored for the rest of the redistribution .
This is better than allowing an incomplete list without a terminator , because the coutners are supposed to try to figure out how you were trying to vote if your paper seems invalid.Although counting would be slower and more expensive , senate vote results are n't usually needed for some time anyway , and this would go some way towards improving the quality of election results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why I would like to see above-the-line voting abolished, but at the same time add a "no further preferences" option to the ballot (as the first option, to kill a few donkey votes), which, if your vote goes that far down the list, means that your paper is then ignored for the rest of the redistribution.
This is better than allowing an incomplete list without a terminator, because the coutners are supposed to try to figure out how you were trying to vote if your paper seems invalid.Although counting would be slower and more expensive, senate vote results aren't usually needed for some time anyway, and this would go some way towards improving the quality of election results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31149500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147906</id>
	<title>Re:These people sure think about children alot</title>
	<author>Shatteredstar</author>
	<datestamp>1266225180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just need to make them have a seat over there....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just need to make them have a seat over there... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just need to make them have a seat over there....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148292</id>
	<title>Re:As a parent, I would like to make a suggestion.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266227100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've no business playing the "hurr slashdotter don't know nothin' 'bout raisin' no kids" card, as you obviously know little enough about it that you COULD benefit from a random slashdotter's advice.  This is proven by the fact that you think that there is any aspect of raising your kids that is anything less than 100\% your responsibility in every possible way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've no business playing the " hurr slashdotter do n't know nothin ' 'bout raisin ' no kids " card , as you obviously know little enough about it that you COULD benefit from a random slashdotter 's advice .
This is proven by the fact that you think that there is any aspect of raising your kids that is anything less than 100 \ % your responsibility in every possible way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've no business playing the "hurr slashdotter don't know nothin' 'bout raisin' no kids" card, as you obviously know little enough about it that you COULD benefit from a random slashdotter's advice.
This is proven by the fact that you think that there is any aspect of raising your kids that is anything less than 100\% your responsibility in every possible way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31149532</id>
	<title>Re:Conroy has his own agenda</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266232980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Perhaps he was teased as a child and this is his revenge on society. Either way he is an irresponsible man and I hope he's now infamous enough that people will vote him out at the next election (though I suspect I hope for too much).</p></div><p>No, you're thinking of Thompson.<br>http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/20050808</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps he was teased as a child and this is his revenge on society .
Either way he is an irresponsible man and I hope he 's now infamous enough that people will vote him out at the next election ( though I suspect I hope for too much ) .No , you 're thinking of Thompson.http : //www.cad-comic.com/cad/20050808</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps he was teased as a child and this is his revenge on society.
Either way he is an irresponsible man and I hope he's now infamous enough that people will vote him out at the next election (though I suspect I hope for too much).No, you're thinking of Thompson.http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/20050808
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31151334</id>
	<title>Re:As a parent, I would like to make a suggestion.</title>
	<author>forebees</author>
	<datestamp>1266246120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup.</p><p>Oh, I suppose I should say more<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>The issue of a mandate is a very relevant one.</p><p>I'm all for ISPs filtering the 'net...if I ask them to. You should be able to ask your provider to add a particular type of filtering to your service and thus be free to roam unhindered by the outside world and alternate views and opinions (no, I'm not talking about the alternate views supporting child porn etc, don't be stupid).</p><p>If you really want this, you should be able to have a 'no fuss' service provided.</p><p>Personally I believe that current legislation needs updating and improving and more money given to the Fed Police to track down child abusers, their groups, 'net friends etc.</p><p>I don't believe the Fed Govt should filter the whole damn Internet as it arrives in Australia. This really is extreme and ineffectual, doing nothing to prevent the problems they claim it will address.</p><p>Added to this, if a psychologist/sociologist wished to do research on 'offensive sexual practices' (or whatever the 'other' category is which doesn't include abuse of children or others)  and was interested in what was currently happening within a given community, this filter will prevent them (I'm not talking about academic material available within a library). It would also prevent drug harm minimisation experts accessing community material because this too will be filtered.</p><p>Yes, I have kids. Yes, they have puters. No, I don't watch them all the time. Yes, I can work out what they're doing. Yes, I can install filters it at home. No, I don't want to.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...but if I were Fred Nile(1) and his fellow travellers, it would be the best thing possible...he won't see ANYTHING! LOL</p><p>(1) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred\_Nile" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred\_Nile</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup.Oh , I suppose I should say more : ) The issue of a mandate is a very relevant one.I 'm all for ISPs filtering the 'net...if I ask them to .
You should be able to ask your provider to add a particular type of filtering to your service and thus be free to roam unhindered by the outside world and alternate views and opinions ( no , I 'm not talking about the alternate views supporting child porn etc , do n't be stupid ) .If you really want this , you should be able to have a 'no fuss ' service provided.Personally I believe that current legislation needs updating and improving and more money given to the Fed Police to track down child abusers , their groups , 'net friends etc.I do n't believe the Fed Govt should filter the whole damn Internet as it arrives in Australia .
This really is extreme and ineffectual , doing nothing to prevent the problems they claim it will address.Added to this , if a psychologist/sociologist wished to do research on 'offensive sexual practices ' ( or whatever the 'other ' category is which does n't include abuse of children or others ) and was interested in what was currently happening within a given community , this filter will prevent them ( I 'm not talking about academic material available within a library ) .
It would also prevent drug harm minimisation experts accessing community material because this too will be filtered.Yes , I have kids .
Yes , they have puters .
No , I do n't watch them all the time .
Yes , I can work out what they 're doing .
Yes , I can install filters it at home .
No , I do n't want to .
...but if I were Fred Nile ( 1 ) and his fellow travellers , it would be the best thing possible...he wo n't see ANYTHING !
LOL ( 1 ) http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred \ _Nile [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup.Oh, I suppose I should say more :)The issue of a mandate is a very relevant one.I'm all for ISPs filtering the 'net...if I ask them to.
You should be able to ask your provider to add a particular type of filtering to your service and thus be free to roam unhindered by the outside world and alternate views and opinions (no, I'm not talking about the alternate views supporting child porn etc, don't be stupid).If you really want this, you should be able to have a 'no fuss' service provided.Personally I believe that current legislation needs updating and improving and more money given to the Fed Police to track down child abusers, their groups, 'net friends etc.I don't believe the Fed Govt should filter the whole damn Internet as it arrives in Australia.
This really is extreme and ineffectual, doing nothing to prevent the problems they claim it will address.Added to this, if a psychologist/sociologist wished to do research on 'offensive sexual practices' (or whatever the 'other' category is which doesn't include abuse of children or others)  and was interested in what was currently happening within a given community, this filter will prevent them (I'm not talking about academic material available within a library).
It would also prevent drug harm minimisation experts accessing community material because this too will be filtered.Yes, I have kids.
Yes, they have puters.
No, I don't watch them all the time.
Yes, I can work out what they're doing.
Yes, I can install filters it at home.
No, I don't want to.
...but if I were Fred Nile(1) and his fellow travellers, it would be the best thing possible...he won't see ANYTHING!
LOL(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred\_Nile [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148136</id>
	<title>Re:As a parent, I would like to make a suggestion.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266226380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am going to let my children watch whatever they want, and play whatever they want. This is how I was raised. I always had the freedom to watch horror movies filled with all sorts of gore, and play the same type of games (then again, games back then didn't have much in the way of gory bits).</p><p>Talking with your kids, though, is certainly helpful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am going to let my children watch whatever they want , and play whatever they want .
This is how I was raised .
I always had the freedom to watch horror movies filled with all sorts of gore , and play the same type of games ( then again , games back then did n't have much in the way of gory bits ) .Talking with your kids , though , is certainly helpful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am going to let my children watch whatever they want, and play whatever they want.
This is how I was raised.
I always had the freedom to watch horror movies filled with all sorts of gore, and play the same type of games (then again, games back then didn't have much in the way of gory bits).Talking with your kids, though, is certainly helpful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147474</id>
	<title>Re:What about china?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266266100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If China jumped off a bridge, would you follow him?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If China jumped off a bridge , would you follow him ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If China jumped off a bridge, would you follow him?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147578</id>
	<title>Just flood Australia already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266266640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It only has 20 million people that can easily go back to more civilized countries. By letting Australia get flooded we won't have to worry about climate change so everyone wins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It only has 20 million people that can easily go back to more civilized countries .
By letting Australia get flooded we wo n't have to worry about climate change so everyone wins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It only has 20 million people that can easily go back to more civilized countries.
By letting Australia get flooded we won't have to worry about climate change so everyone wins.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147414</id>
	<title>What about china?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266265860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>So Australia can't filter but China can?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So Australia ca n't filter but China can ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Australia can't filter but China can?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31150910</id>
	<title>Re:Conroy has his own agenda</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1266241680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Perhaps he's in bed with the media organisations</p></div></blockquote><p>There has been millions in taxpayers money heading their way in the last few weeks which makes that very likely.  Meanwhile the other party is too busy trying to stir up trouble over industrial accidents to hear about it in the portions of the media that didn't get the money.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps he 's in bed with the media organisationsThere has been millions in taxpayers money heading their way in the last few weeks which makes that very likely .
Meanwhile the other party is too busy trying to stir up trouble over industrial accidents to hear about it in the portions of the media that did n't get the money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps he's in bed with the media organisationsThere has been millions in taxpayers money heading their way in the last few weeks which makes that very likely.
Meanwhile the other party is too busy trying to stir up trouble over industrial accidents to hear about it in the portions of the media that didn't get the money.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31150182</id>
	<title>Re:As a parent, I would like to make a suggestion.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266236280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's what you do -- you devote all of your attention to the two kids who are able to carry conversations and learn on-par, and you take your two retards and keep them chained in the basement with bowls of gruel for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.<br> <br>

Alternately, you could sell your retards off to a traveling freakshow, or on the black market for a grand apiece. Surely there are plenty of Jewish and Russian businessmen who are looking for a discount on household slave labor. And retards have super-strength, which makes them good for construction or private security.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's what you do -- you devote all of your attention to the two kids who are able to carry conversations and learn on-par , and you take your two retards and keep them chained in the basement with bowls of gruel for breakfast , lunch , and dinner .
Alternately , you could sell your retards off to a traveling freakshow , or on the black market for a grand apiece .
Surely there are plenty of Jewish and Russian businessmen who are looking for a discount on household slave labor .
And retards have super-strength , which makes them good for construction or private security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's what you do -- you devote all of your attention to the two kids who are able to carry conversations and learn on-par, and you take your two retards and keep them chained in the basement with bowls of gruel for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
Alternately, you could sell your retards off to a traveling freakshow, or on the black market for a grand apiece.
Surely there are plenty of Jewish and Russian businessmen who are looking for a discount on household slave labor.
And retards have super-strength, which makes them good for construction or private security.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147844</id>
	<title>Re:As a parent, I would like to make a suggestion.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266224880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How about people actually started parenting their children? I'm sure as hell not going to let the kids go online alone until they are old enough to do so responsibly. Just like I don't let them watch TV programs and movies out of their age group. Or how I actually spend time with them and talk to them about stuff. (Even a three-year-old can have a proper conversation if you actually listen and support with asking questions.)</p><p>So when will people get off their collective asses and stop trying to find ways to escape responsibility and offload it to whatever solution happens to be popular at the time?</p><p>I man can dream, can't he?</p><p>(And no, I can't control what they do at their friends etc. etc. But there are risks with crossing the street too.)</p></div><p>The issue isn't one of parenting (or the lack thereof), but that the democratically-elected Australian Government has made the decision to filter Internet content without the mandate of the people. That is, the Government is going to filter content "for the people's own good - despite what they people may actually want". The "it's for your own good" argument has been used many times before, but in the end, it's all censorship and usually flawed.</p><p>Of course, the major flaw here is that the filter (if imposed) will probably catch educational / information content as well as nasty stuff. The Australian Government has conveniently overlooked this point, presumably with the idea that "it's for your own good, you know". It's as equally flawed as the previously elected Australian Government empowering the Australian Broadcasting Ombudsman's office with the ability to shut down offensive websites.... which only worked if the website was actually based in Australia. The first website that was shut down as a result of this law simply moved the content overseas and went on, business as usual. I think they were down for about an hour.</p><p>However, to return to the issue at hand: Whilst I certainly agree with a "positive parenting" approach, the censorship of the Internet by the Australian Government is essentially seeking to remove the need for parents to oversee their children's activities on the 'net - regardless of whether the parent wants it or not. This is not democracy in action, it's almost draconian in nature - hence Anonymous' protests.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about people actually started parenting their children ?
I 'm sure as hell not going to let the kids go online alone until they are old enough to do so responsibly .
Just like I do n't let them watch TV programs and movies out of their age group .
Or how I actually spend time with them and talk to them about stuff .
( Even a three-year-old can have a proper conversation if you actually listen and support with asking questions .
) So when will people get off their collective asses and stop trying to find ways to escape responsibility and offload it to whatever solution happens to be popular at the time ? I man can dream , ca n't he ?
( And no , I ca n't control what they do at their friends etc .
etc. But there are risks with crossing the street too .
) The issue is n't one of parenting ( or the lack thereof ) , but that the democratically-elected Australian Government has made the decision to filter Internet content without the mandate of the people .
That is , the Government is going to filter content " for the people 's own good - despite what they people may actually want " .
The " it 's for your own good " argument has been used many times before , but in the end , it 's all censorship and usually flawed.Of course , the major flaw here is that the filter ( if imposed ) will probably catch educational / information content as well as nasty stuff .
The Australian Government has conveniently overlooked this point , presumably with the idea that " it 's for your own good , you know " .
It 's as equally flawed as the previously elected Australian Government empowering the Australian Broadcasting Ombudsman 's office with the ability to shut down offensive websites.... which only worked if the website was actually based in Australia .
The first website that was shut down as a result of this law simply moved the content overseas and went on , business as usual .
I think they were down for about an hour.However , to return to the issue at hand : Whilst I certainly agree with a " positive parenting " approach , the censorship of the Internet by the Australian Government is essentially seeking to remove the need for parents to oversee their children 's activities on the 'net - regardless of whether the parent wants it or not .
This is not democracy in action , it 's almost draconian in nature - hence Anonymous ' protests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about people actually started parenting their children?
I'm sure as hell not going to let the kids go online alone until they are old enough to do so responsibly.
Just like I don't let them watch TV programs and movies out of their age group.
Or how I actually spend time with them and talk to them about stuff.
(Even a three-year-old can have a proper conversation if you actually listen and support with asking questions.
)So when will people get off their collective asses and stop trying to find ways to escape responsibility and offload it to whatever solution happens to be popular at the time?I man can dream, can't he?
(And no, I can't control what they do at their friends etc.
etc. But there are risks with crossing the street too.
)The issue isn't one of parenting (or the lack thereof), but that the democratically-elected Australian Government has made the decision to filter Internet content without the mandate of the people.
That is, the Government is going to filter content "for the people's own good - despite what they people may actually want".
The "it's for your own good" argument has been used many times before, but in the end, it's all censorship and usually flawed.Of course, the major flaw here is that the filter (if imposed) will probably catch educational / information content as well as nasty stuff.
The Australian Government has conveniently overlooked this point, presumably with the idea that "it's for your own good, you know".
It's as equally flawed as the previously elected Australian Government empowering the Australian Broadcasting Ombudsman's office with the ability to shut down offensive websites.... which only worked if the website was actually based in Australia.
The first website that was shut down as a result of this law simply moved the content overseas and went on, business as usual.
I think they were down for about an hour.However, to return to the issue at hand: Whilst I certainly agree with a "positive parenting" approach, the censorship of the Internet by the Australian Government is essentially seeking to remove the need for parents to oversee their children's activities on the 'net - regardless of whether the parent wants it or not.
This is not democracy in action, it's almost draconian in nature - hence Anonymous' protests.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148912</id>
	<title>Re:But the problem is</title>
	<author>socceroos</author>
	<datestamp>1266230160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Parent is right (pun intended). We should be telling our kids to look at goatse and 4chan twenty-four-sev!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.....as long as they aren't infected.
<br> <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>....with what??
<br> <br>
WAGE!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Parent is right ( pun intended ) .
We should be telling our kids to look at goatse and 4chan twenty-four-sev !
.....as long as they are n't infected .
....with what ? ?
WAGE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Parent is right (pun intended).
We should be telling our kids to look at goatse and 4chan twenty-four-sev!
.....as long as they aren't infected.
....with what??
WAGE!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31152372</id>
	<title>for what its worth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266257880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i thought it was insightful (besides the forgivable typo)<br>cheers</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i thought it was insightful ( besides the forgivable typo ) cheers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i thought it was insightful (besides the forgivable typo)cheers</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147960</id>
	<title>Make the Parents Responsible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266225480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here in Canada, we have a very simple system of keeping children safe in the real world.  We make their parents legally responsible for watching their children.</p><p>Why can't we (Canada, Australia and everywhere else) make the parents legally responsible for watching their children online?  This way the government wouldn't need to do internet censorship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here in Canada , we have a very simple system of keeping children safe in the real world .
We make their parents legally responsible for watching their children.Why ca n't we ( Canada , Australia and everywhere else ) make the parents legally responsible for watching their children online ?
This way the government would n't need to do internet censorship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here in Canada, we have a very simple system of keeping children safe in the real world.
We make their parents legally responsible for watching their children.Why can't we (Canada, Australia and everywhere else) make the parents legally responsible for watching their children online?
This way the government wouldn't need to do internet censorship.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31151880</id>
	<title>Re:Conroy has his own agenda</title>
	<author>g-lock82</author>
	<datestamp>1266252060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When you're a partisan hack who has risen to the No.2 spot on a Senate ballot for your major party, you only need ~8\% of the vote to get in.  Again.<br> <br>

I've just found out that Senator Conroy is elected in Victoria, where I live.  Never before have I worked out who's going last on my vote so early in an election year.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you 're a partisan hack who has risen to the No.2 spot on a Senate ballot for your major party , you only need ~ 8 \ % of the vote to get in .
Again . I 've just found out that Senator Conroy is elected in Victoria , where I live .
Never before have I worked out who 's going last on my vote so early in an election year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you're a partisan hack who has risen to the No.2 spot on a Senate ballot for your major party, you only need ~8\% of the vote to get in.
Again. 

I've just found out that Senator Conroy is elected in Victoria, where I live.
Never before have I worked out who's going last on my vote so early in an election year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147974</id>
	<title>Re:As a parent, I would like to make a suggestion.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266225480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Parent poster's point still stands:
<br>raise your fucking kids.  If you don't wanna raise 'em and be responsible for 'em then don't fucking have 'em.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Parent poster 's point still stands : raise your fucking kids .
If you do n't wan na raise 'em and be responsible for 'em then do n't fucking have 'em .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Parent poster's point still stands:
raise your fucking kids.
If you don't wanna raise 'em and be responsible for 'em then don't fucking have 'em.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31149858</id>
	<title>spam anyone?</title>
	<author>snapple)(two</author>
	<datestamp>1266234420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone up for spamming the content complaint sections of the acma website? i've been sending links to rick astley vids under the label of "child pornography".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone up for spamming the content complaint sections of the acma website ?
i 've been sending links to rick astley vids under the label of " child pornography " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone up for spamming the content complaint sections of the acma website?
i've been sending links to rick astley vids under the label of "child pornography".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31149736</id>
	<title>Re:As a parent, I would like to make a suggestion.</title>
	<author>Arthur Grumbine</author>
	<datestamp>1266233820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But thank you for your<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.otter advice on parenting.</p></div><p>I believe you are mistaken, sir. It's only on topics relating to the appropriate naming of atheist organizations, and the proper way to consume mollusks, that the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. Otters give advice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But thank you for your /.otter advice on parenting.I believe you are mistaken , sir .
It 's only on topics relating to the appropriate naming of atheist organizations , and the proper way to consume mollusks , that the / .
Otters give advice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But thank you for your /.otter advice on parenting.I believe you are mistaken, sir.
It's only on topics relating to the appropriate naming of atheist organizations, and the proper way to consume mollusks, that the /.
Otters give advice.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147800</id>
	<title>Re:As a parent, I would like to make a suggestion.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266224640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>um 1 word - KIDZUI</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>um 1 word - KIDZUI</tokentext>
<sentencetext>um 1 word - KIDZUI</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148140</id>
	<title>gnCaa</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266226380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">[gay-sex-access.com]? leeson and A8d Michael Smith shitheads. *BSD</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ gay-sex-access.com ] ?
leeson and A8d Michael Smith shitheads .
* BSD [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[gay-sex-access.com]?
leeson and A8d Michael Smith shitheads.
*BSD [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148818</id>
	<title>Re:But the problem is</title>
	<author>jockeys</author>
	<datestamp>1266229680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>very, VERY well said.</htmltext>
<tokenext>very , VERY well said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>very, VERY well said.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147472</id>
	<title>Clearly unessecary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266266100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The btards have already assured me that they are going to stop this, just like they totally destroyed Scientology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The btards have already assured me that they are going to stop this , just like they totally destroyed Scientology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The btards have already assured me that they are going to stop this, just like they totally destroyed Scientology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147842</id>
	<title>Re:As a parent, I would like to make a suggestion.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266224880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>See, but now you're saying that because of the 2 you don't have ANY time.  Is that true?  The OP did NOT say anything about how much time would need devoted, simply mentioned that some time.

Yes you have two children with additional needs but it sounds almost like you are trying to make an excuse for why the other two might not have proper parenting.

Would such work if say one of those children injured themselves in the home and if questioned you said "I'm sorry but I was taking care of the other two children, I did not have time to make sure that one was safe."

Parenting is one thing, being on the child's back constantly is a wholly different thing.

For the more harsh argument, if you have issues managing the two children with disabilities then why do you have 4 children?  (i'm not sure on the order of birth/twins/triplets/quadruplets in the situation)</htmltext>
<tokenext>See , but now you 're saying that because of the 2 you do n't have ANY time .
Is that true ?
The OP did NOT say anything about how much time would need devoted , simply mentioned that some time .
Yes you have two children with additional needs but it sounds almost like you are trying to make an excuse for why the other two might not have proper parenting .
Would such work if say one of those children injured themselves in the home and if questioned you said " I 'm sorry but I was taking care of the other two children , I did not have time to make sure that one was safe .
" Parenting is one thing , being on the child 's back constantly is a wholly different thing .
For the more harsh argument , if you have issues managing the two children with disabilities then why do you have 4 children ?
( i 'm not sure on the order of birth/twins/triplets/quadruplets in the situation )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See, but now you're saying that because of the 2 you don't have ANY time.
Is that true?
The OP did NOT say anything about how much time would need devoted, simply mentioned that some time.
Yes you have two children with additional needs but it sounds almost like you are trying to make an excuse for why the other two might not have proper parenting.
Would such work if say one of those children injured themselves in the home and if questioned you said "I'm sorry but I was taking care of the other two children, I did not have time to make sure that one was safe.
"

Parenting is one thing, being on the child's back constantly is a wholly different thing.
For the more harsh argument, if you have issues managing the two children with disabilities then why do you have 4 children?
(i'm not sure on the order of birth/twins/triplets/quadruplets in the situation)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148710</id>
	<title>Re:As a parent, I would like to make a suggestion.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266229080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first action on protecting the children from the evil internet from the government proposing this ridiculous filter was to eliminate the previous government's subsidised filtering software.  The situation before was that you could get free internet filtering software installed on your PCs at no cost because the government paid for it so you could protect your children.  Despite being highly publicised through ISPs and advertisements it had a very low take up rate.  In this action the government clearly demonstrates that they have no interest in protecting the children.  This proposed filter has nothing to do with protecting the children.</p><p>Children are not likely to be harmed by seeing porn online or most of the other content.  They are more at risk from sick predators that seek on children on social networks and instant messaging systems which this filter does nothing to address.  Spending on the filter will be used as an excuse to take money away from law enforcement, increasing the risk to the children.</p><p>The filter is about scoring some cheap political points by treating all Australians like children.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first action on protecting the children from the evil internet from the government proposing this ridiculous filter was to eliminate the previous government 's subsidised filtering software .
The situation before was that you could get free internet filtering software installed on your PCs at no cost because the government paid for it so you could protect your children .
Despite being highly publicised through ISPs and advertisements it had a very low take up rate .
In this action the government clearly demonstrates that they have no interest in protecting the children .
This proposed filter has nothing to do with protecting the children.Children are not likely to be harmed by seeing porn online or most of the other content .
They are more at risk from sick predators that seek on children on social networks and instant messaging systems which this filter does nothing to address .
Spending on the filter will be used as an excuse to take money away from law enforcement , increasing the risk to the children.The filter is about scoring some cheap political points by treating all Australians like children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first action on protecting the children from the evil internet from the government proposing this ridiculous filter was to eliminate the previous government's subsidised filtering software.
The situation before was that you could get free internet filtering software installed on your PCs at no cost because the government paid for it so you could protect your children.
Despite being highly publicised through ISPs and advertisements it had a very low take up rate.
In this action the government clearly demonstrates that they have no interest in protecting the children.
This proposed filter has nothing to do with protecting the children.Children are not likely to be harmed by seeing porn online or most of the other content.
They are more at risk from sick predators that seek on children on social networks and instant messaging systems which this filter does nothing to address.
Spending on the filter will be used as an excuse to take money away from law enforcement, increasing the risk to the children.The filter is about scoring some cheap political points by treating all Australians like children.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31151112</id>
	<title>Forget "protect the children"</title>
	<author>daver00</author>
	<datestamp>1266243780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government is not running on the assumption that a filter will save all the children, although it certainly is in their PR arsenal. What the government is doing, in their own eyes, is simply closing a loophole in the law. Australia has tough censorship laws *already*, the internet is just not filtered at this point. The government is simply seeking to apply its existing legal framework to the internet.</p><p>But this raises the far more important issue: Australia has a draconian censorship framework which needs to be brought into the modern age. The mere fact that the government applying their ratings rules is immediately seen as great wall of China style censorship is indicative of how out of touch the local censorship laws are with contemporary society. This sums up the far bigger problem that critics face: Conroy see this whole issue as applying the law in its intent, the way it is meant to be applied (closing a loophole), in order to get the government to view it any other way would require the government to be convinced it censorship framework needs to be loosened up, R18+ for games would be a nice start!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government is not running on the assumption that a filter will save all the children , although it certainly is in their PR arsenal .
What the government is doing , in their own eyes , is simply closing a loophole in the law .
Australia has tough censorship laws * already * , the internet is just not filtered at this point .
The government is simply seeking to apply its existing legal framework to the internet.But this raises the far more important issue : Australia has a draconian censorship framework which needs to be brought into the modern age .
The mere fact that the government applying their ratings rules is immediately seen as great wall of China style censorship is indicative of how out of touch the local censorship laws are with contemporary society .
This sums up the far bigger problem that critics face : Conroy see this whole issue as applying the law in its intent , the way it is meant to be applied ( closing a loophole ) , in order to get the government to view it any other way would require the government to be convinced it censorship framework needs to be loosened up , R18 + for games would be a nice start !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government is not running on the assumption that a filter will save all the children, although it certainly is in their PR arsenal.
What the government is doing, in their own eyes, is simply closing a loophole in the law.
Australia has tough censorship laws *already*, the internet is just not filtered at this point.
The government is simply seeking to apply its existing legal framework to the internet.But this raises the far more important issue: Australia has a draconian censorship framework which needs to be brought into the modern age.
The mere fact that the government applying their ratings rules is immediately seen as great wall of China style censorship is indicative of how out of touch the local censorship laws are with contemporary society.
This sums up the far bigger problem that critics face: Conroy see this whole issue as applying the law in its intent, the way it is meant to be applied (closing a loophole), in order to get the government to view it any other way would require the government to be convinced it censorship framework needs to be loosened up, R18+ for games would be a nice start!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31152526</id>
	<title>for the love of whatever</title>
	<author>cavebison</author>
	<datestamp>1266259260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's so difficult about this concept:</p><p>Children SHOULD NOT BE USING the Internet. Computers of course, as long as they exercise too, but Internet no. Children should be socialising IRL not chatting to each other online. Children should be learning things about the real world, having difficult ideas explained, not being fed schoolyard opinions at home as well as at school. Children's peers should not be as important as their (hopefully positive) adult role models (hopefully their parents). Children should find joy and imagination in nature, books, art and music, not the Internet. Sure those things can be found on the net - if you're looking for it. But mainly no.</p><p>Take a walk down a busy street with your kid - by the time you get home, s/he will probably have questions that you're glad you can explain in person. The Internet is NOT FOR KIDS, period. Just the chat on most game servers is not for kids.</p><p>That position will sound extreme, but as long as I can do an image search on google for "breasts" and get <a href="http://images.google.com.au/images?hl=en&amp;source=hp&amp;q=breasts&amp;um=1&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;sa=N&amp;tab=wi" title="google.com.au" rel="nofollow">this</a> [google.com.au],<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p><p>uh.. so like I was saying.. extreme position.. What?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's so difficult about this concept : Children SHOULD NOT BE USING the Internet .
Computers of course , as long as they exercise too , but Internet no .
Children should be socialising IRL not chatting to each other online .
Children should be learning things about the real world , having difficult ideas explained , not being fed schoolyard opinions at home as well as at school .
Children 's peers should not be as important as their ( hopefully positive ) adult role models ( hopefully their parents ) .
Children should find joy and imagination in nature , books , art and music , not the Internet .
Sure those things can be found on the net - if you 're looking for it .
But mainly no.Take a walk down a busy street with your kid - by the time you get home , s/he will probably have questions that you 're glad you can explain in person .
The Internet is NOT FOR KIDS , period .
Just the chat on most game servers is not for kids.That position will sound extreme , but as long as I can do an image search on google for " breasts " and get this [ google.com.au ] , ..uh.. so like I was saying.. extreme position.. What ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's so difficult about this concept:Children SHOULD NOT BE USING the Internet.
Computers of course, as long as they exercise too, but Internet no.
Children should be socialising IRL not chatting to each other online.
Children should be learning things about the real world, having difficult ideas explained, not being fed schoolyard opinions at home as well as at school.
Children's peers should not be as important as their (hopefully positive) adult role models (hopefully their parents).
Children should find joy and imagination in nature, books, art and music, not the Internet.
Sure those things can be found on the net - if you're looking for it.
But mainly no.Take a walk down a busy street with your kid - by the time you get home, s/he will probably have questions that you're glad you can explain in person.
The Internet is NOT FOR KIDS, period.
Just the chat on most game servers is not for kids.That position will sound extreme, but as long as I can do an image search on google for "breasts" and get this [google.com.au], ..uh.. so like I was saying.. extreme position.. What?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31149278</id>
	<title>Re:What about china?</title>
	<author>c6gunner</author>
	<datestamp>1266231900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So Australia can't filter but China can?</p></div><p>So the Saudis can treat women as inferiors or slaves, but the western world can't?</p><p>You're comparing a regressive action to the status-quo.  Obviously neither situation is acceptable, but it's only natural that people will protest more strongly against a progressive nation slipping into tyranny than they will against a regressive nation maintaining policies which are hundreds or thousands of years old.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So Australia ca n't filter but China can ? So the Saudis can treat women as inferiors or slaves , but the western world ca n't ? You 're comparing a regressive action to the status-quo .
Obviously neither situation is acceptable , but it 's only natural that people will protest more strongly against a progressive nation slipping into tyranny than they will against a regressive nation maintaining policies which are hundreds or thousands of years old .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Australia can't filter but China can?So the Saudis can treat women as inferiors or slaves, but the western world can't?You're comparing a regressive action to the status-quo.
Obviously neither situation is acceptable, but it's only natural that people will protest more strongly against a progressive nation slipping into tyranny than they will against a regressive nation maintaining policies which are hundreds or thousands of years old.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31154018</id>
	<title>Re:But the problem is</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1266325380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My Parents definition of safe was don't shoot yourself, but kill as many for those bloody Aussie tree bears as you can (Possums). Don't roll the tractor, we can't afford a new one, and I won't take you to the hospital if you burn yourself when using petrol to light a fire. I was 13, the oldest of 5. We all turned out just fine. Had a lot of fun with the dirt bikes. Breaks and injuries heal (mostly). Fun memories last forever<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>My Parents definition of safe was do n't shoot yourself , but kill as many for those bloody Aussie tree bears as you can ( Possums ) .
Do n't roll the tractor , we ca n't afford a new one , and I wo n't take you to the hospital if you burn yourself when using petrol to light a fire .
I was 13 , the oldest of 5 .
We all turned out just fine .
Had a lot of fun with the dirt bikes .
Breaks and injuries heal ( mostly ) .
Fun memories last forever ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My Parents definition of safe was don't shoot yourself, but kill as many for those bloody Aussie tree bears as you can (Possums).
Don't roll the tractor, we can't afford a new one, and I won't take you to the hospital if you burn yourself when using petrol to light a fire.
I was 13, the oldest of 5.
We all turned out just fine.
Had a lot of fun with the dirt bikes.
Breaks and injuries heal (mostly).
Fun memories last forever ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31151866</id>
	<title>Re:As a parent, I would like to make a suggestion.</title>
	<author>Rennt</author>
	<datestamp>1266251700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"won't somebody think of the parents!"</p><p>
Here is another hard bit of reality for you: No number of disabled kids or overworked parents makes compulsory internet filtering a good idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" wo n't somebody think of the parents !
" Here is another hard bit of reality for you : No number of disabled kids or overworked parents makes compulsory internet filtering a good idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"won't somebody think of the parents!
"
Here is another hard bit of reality for you: No number of disabled kids or overworked parents makes compulsory internet filtering a good idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148822</id>
	<title>Re:As a parent, I would like to make a suggestion.</title>
	<author>ElectricTurtle</author>
	<datestamp>1266229680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ouch. Mega burn. As a father of one who will wait several years to figure out what that one means before having another (which will also probably be the last), I wholeheartedly agree.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ouch .
Mega burn .
As a father of one who will wait several years to figure out what that one means before having another ( which will also probably be the last ) , I wholeheartedly agree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ouch.
Mega burn.
As a father of one who will wait several years to figure out what that one means before having another (which will also probably be the last), I wholeheartedly agree.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31150324</id>
	<title>Re:Just flood Australia already</title>
	<author>some\_guy\_88</author>
	<datestamp>1266237300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you'll buy me a house and pay for my flights I'll pack my bags tonight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 'll buy me a house and pay for my flights I 'll pack my bags tonight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you'll buy me a house and pay for my flights I'll pack my bags tonight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31151574</id>
	<title>Re:Wait what?</title>
	<author>Philip\_the\_physicist</author>
	<datestamp>1266248520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're opposed to the filter on practical grounds, but those grounds cover basically anything at the ISP level. It isn't as good as philosophical objections, but it's better than nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're opposed to the filter on practical grounds , but those grounds cover basically anything at the ISP level .
It is n't as good as philosophical objections , but it 's better than nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're opposed to the filter on practical grounds, but those grounds cover basically anything at the ISP level.
It isn't as good as philosophical objections, but it's better than nothing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31150144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147894</id>
	<title>Re:What about china?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266225120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Australia is trying to force the ISPs, content providers, and website operators to perform the censorship.</p><p>China does the censorship at a country-wide firewall level operated by the government. Iran does it this way as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Australia is trying to force the ISPs , content providers , and website operators to perform the censorship.China does the censorship at a country-wide firewall level operated by the government .
Iran does it this way as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Australia is trying to force the ISPs, content providers, and website operators to perform the censorship.China does the censorship at a country-wide firewall level operated by the government.
Iran does it this way as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31149198</id>
	<title>The ALIA statement sucks</title>
	<author>physburn</author>
	<datestamp>1266231600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>We, the Australian Library and Information Association, Google, Inspire Foundation and Yahoo! agree that Australia needs to take effective action to ensure that internet users, and particularly children, have a safe experience online.</i>
The statement i would sign would be that internet users deserve, freedom and privacy, and protection against Quango's Megacorps and goverments, at all times.
<p>
---
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/Censorship/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">Censorship</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We , the Australian Library and Information Association , Google , Inspire Foundation and Yahoo !
agree that Australia needs to take effective action to ensure that internet users , and particularly children , have a safe experience online .
The statement i would sign would be that internet users deserve , freedom and privacy , and protection against Quango 's Megacorps and goverments , at all times .
--- Censorship [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We, the Australian Library and Information Association, Google, Inspire Foundation and Yahoo!
agree that Australia needs to take effective action to ensure that internet users, and particularly children, have a safe experience online.
The statement i would sign would be that internet users deserve, freedom and privacy, and protection against Quango's Megacorps and goverments, at all times.
---

Censorship [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31152258</id>
	<title>Feb 20th Anti-Censorship Aussie Protests Planned</title>
	<author>JumperCable</author>
	<datestamp>1266256500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Website: <a href="http://projectfreeweb.org/" title="projectfreeweb.org">http://projectfreeweb.org/</a> [projectfreeweb.org]<br>Forums: <a href="http://freeweb.whyweprotest.net/" title="whyweprotest.net">http://freeweb.whyweprotest.net/</a> [whyweprotest.net]<br>Promo: <a href="http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/3015/fixedfreeweb.png" title="imageshack.us">http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/3015/fixedfreeweb.png</a> [imageshack.us]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Website : http : //projectfreeweb.org/ [ projectfreeweb.org ] Forums : http : //freeweb.whyweprotest.net/ [ whyweprotest.net ] Promo : http : //img651.imageshack.us/img651/3015/fixedfreeweb.png [ imageshack.us ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Website: http://projectfreeweb.org/ [projectfreeweb.org]Forums: http://freeweb.whyweprotest.net/ [whyweprotest.net]Promo: http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/3015/fixedfreeweb.png [imageshack.us]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147860</id>
	<title>can't be done, or voluntary filters</title>
	<author>h00manist</author>
	<datestamp>1266224940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>long winded rant&gt; Long story short, you can't really convert the world into a safe environment for kids, without trying to and making the world safe for all human beings.  That would be a real government job.  Other than that, you can put in all the filters, censors, and spies you want, and achieve only partial success at best, creating a vibrant information-black-market in the meantime.  Just look at drugs, alcohol, piracy, MP3, and porn.  Desired by many, but filled with silly, ineffective rules, prohibitions, restrictions, and regulations, all a waste of time. So, lock the kids up into a disneyland censored world, or teach them to be smart, learn about how things are, defend themselves, and let them go outside and grow up.  I'm not advocating throwing two-year-olds into downtown red districts and say "ok, just walk home alone".  But expecting the city police or secret government to just tell every drug addict and nutcase along the way to shut up and watch in respect the passing children with blinders or magical-beauty-filter-goggles, but otherwise continue business as usual, is pathetic.  If they wanted the world safer, they should do something about it, call the UN, Unesco, the Dalai Lama, human rigthts people, ask what to do, and not call the spies and the police, who are just part of the problem of everyone against everyone.  --<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/long winded rant&gt;</htmltext>
<tokenext>long winded rant &gt; Long story short , you ca n't really convert the world into a safe environment for kids , without trying to and making the world safe for all human beings .
That would be a real government job .
Other than that , you can put in all the filters , censors , and spies you want , and achieve only partial success at best , creating a vibrant information-black-market in the meantime .
Just look at drugs , alcohol , piracy , MP3 , and porn .
Desired by many , but filled with silly , ineffective rules , prohibitions , restrictions , and regulations , all a waste of time .
So , lock the kids up into a disneyland censored world , or teach them to be smart , learn about how things are , defend themselves , and let them go outside and grow up .
I 'm not advocating throwing two-year-olds into downtown red districts and say " ok , just walk home alone " .
But expecting the city police or secret government to just tell every drug addict and nutcase along the way to shut up and watch in respect the passing children with blinders or magical-beauty-filter-goggles , but otherwise continue business as usual , is pathetic .
If they wanted the world safer , they should do something about it , call the UN , Unesco , the Dalai Lama , human rigthts people , ask what to do , and not call the spies and the police , who are just part of the problem of everyone against everyone .
-- /long winded rant &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>long winded rant&gt; Long story short, you can't really convert the world into a safe environment for kids, without trying to and making the world safe for all human beings.
That would be a real government job.
Other than that, you can put in all the filters, censors, and spies you want, and achieve only partial success at best, creating a vibrant information-black-market in the meantime.
Just look at drugs, alcohol, piracy, MP3, and porn.
Desired by many, but filled with silly, ineffective rules, prohibitions, restrictions, and regulations, all a waste of time.
So, lock the kids up into a disneyland censored world, or teach them to be smart, learn about how things are, defend themselves, and let them go outside and grow up.
I'm not advocating throwing two-year-olds into downtown red districts and say "ok, just walk home alone".
But expecting the city police or secret government to just tell every drug addict and nutcase along the way to shut up and watch in respect the passing children with blinders or magical-beauty-filter-goggles, but otherwise continue business as usual, is pathetic.
If they wanted the world safer, they should do something about it, call the UN, Unesco, the Dalai Lama, human rigthts people, ask what to do, and not call the spies and the police, who are just part of the problem of everyone against everyone.
-- /long winded rant&gt;</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147696</id>
	<title>Re:As a parent, I would like to make a suggestion.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266267240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let me throw a piece of reality at you:

<p>When you have 4 kids, 2 of whom have learning disabilities and cannot hold a conversation to talk about "stuff" at 12 years old, as a parent you tend to focus on those 2 kids, leaving the 2 others a bit more alone. Sure as hell you cannot be on their back 24h a day.
</p><p>
But thank you for your<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.otter advice on parenting. I'm sure that you have an extensive experience on that matter, and you're at the right place to discuss such things.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me throw a piece of reality at you : When you have 4 kids , 2 of whom have learning disabilities and can not hold a conversation to talk about " stuff " at 12 years old , as a parent you tend to focus on those 2 kids , leaving the 2 others a bit more alone .
Sure as hell you can not be on their back 24h a day .
But thank you for your /.otter advice on parenting .
I 'm sure that you have an extensive experience on that matter , and you 're at the right place to discuss such things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me throw a piece of reality at you:

When you have 4 kids, 2 of whom have learning disabilities and cannot hold a conversation to talk about "stuff" at 12 years old, as a parent you tend to focus on those 2 kids, leaving the 2 others a bit more alone.
Sure as hell you cannot be on their back 24h a day.
But thank you for your /.otter advice on parenting.
I'm sure that you have an extensive experience on that matter, and you're at the right place to discuss such things.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31151480</id>
	<title>Re:I interpret that as....</title>
	<author>srodden</author>
	<datestamp>1266247620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're reading more into it than it says.

It says "we support<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/effective/ (emphasis theirs) action [to ensure a safe experience]". By implication, they feel that that Sen. Conroy's proposal is not effective. It does not in any way state "we support a filter". It goes on to say that the filter as proposed is broken by design and proposes a combination of user education, more effective policing of detected problems and the implementation of voluntary filtering.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're reading more into it than it says .
It says " we support /effective/ ( emphasis theirs ) action [ to ensure a safe experience ] " .
By implication , they feel that that Sen. Conroy 's proposal is not effective .
It does not in any way state " we support a filter " .
It goes on to say that the filter as proposed is broken by design and proposes a combination of user education , more effective policing of detected problems and the implementation of voluntary filtering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're reading more into it than it says.
It says "we support /effective/ (emphasis theirs) action [to ensure a safe experience]".
By implication, they feel that that Sen. Conroy's proposal is not effective.
It does not in any way state "we support a filter".
It goes on to say that the filter as proposed is broken by design and proposes a combination of user education, more effective policing of detected problems and the implementation of voluntary filtering.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147460</id>
	<title>As a parent, I would like to make a suggestion...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266266100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about people actually started parenting their children? I'm sure as hell not going to let the kids go online alone until they are old enough to do so responsibly. Just like I don't let them watch TV programs and movies out of their age group. Or how I actually spend time with them and talk to them about stuff. (Even a three-year-old can have a proper conversation if you actually listen and support with asking questions.)</p><p>So when will people get off their collective asses and stop trying to find ways to escape responsibility and offload it to whatever solution happens to be popular at the time?</p><p>I man can dream, can't he?</p><p>(And no, I can't control what they do at their friends etc. etc. But there are risks with crossing the street too.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about people actually started parenting their children ?
I 'm sure as hell not going to let the kids go online alone until they are old enough to do so responsibly .
Just like I do n't let them watch TV programs and movies out of their age group .
Or how I actually spend time with them and talk to them about stuff .
( Even a three-year-old can have a proper conversation if you actually listen and support with asking questions .
) So when will people get off their collective asses and stop trying to find ways to escape responsibility and offload it to whatever solution happens to be popular at the time ? I man can dream , ca n't he ?
( And no , I ca n't control what they do at their friends etc .
etc. But there are risks with crossing the street too .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about people actually started parenting their children?
I'm sure as hell not going to let the kids go online alone until they are old enough to do so responsibly.
Just like I don't let them watch TV programs and movies out of their age group.
Or how I actually spend time with them and talk to them about stuff.
(Even a three-year-old can have a proper conversation if you actually listen and support with asking questions.
)So when will people get off their collective asses and stop trying to find ways to escape responsibility and offload it to whatever solution happens to be popular at the time?I man can dream, can't he?
(And no, I can't control what they do at their friends etc.
etc. But there are risks with crossing the street too.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31151034</id>
	<title>Re:As a parent, I would like to make a suggestion.</title>
	<author>daver00</author>
	<datestamp>1266242940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is that any reason to go looking to the state to enforce censorship on an entire country? So that you can have the freedom to not install an internet filter on your own computer?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that any reason to go looking to the state to enforce censorship on an entire country ?
So that you can have the freedom to not install an internet filter on your own computer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that any reason to go looking to the state to enforce censorship on an entire country?
So that you can have the freedom to not install an internet filter on your own computer?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31149770</id>
	<title>Re:As a parent, I would like to make a suggestion.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266234060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My Grandmother had nine (9) surviving siblings (5 others died before their first birthday).  She describes both of her parents as loving and having spent a lot of time with her.  My Grand Uncles and Aunts all have similar descriptions.</p><p>My Great Grandfather was a coal miner who worked 6 days a week for 12 hours a day.  My Great Grandmother cooked everything from scratch, repaired the home (as in carpentry), made all the cloths by hand, washed them by hand, and cared for livestock at times when they had a milk cow.  By all accounts (Aunts/Uncles/Grand parents/diaries) both had an active social life as well.</p><p>If you really have so little time after dealing with just two of your children that you don't have time for your other two children I really question your use of time.  Surely there is a way to involve all four children in activities.  Surly there is a better way to manage your and your children time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My Grandmother had nine ( 9 ) surviving siblings ( 5 others died before their first birthday ) .
She describes both of her parents as loving and having spent a lot of time with her .
My Grand Uncles and Aunts all have similar descriptions.My Great Grandfather was a coal miner who worked 6 days a week for 12 hours a day .
My Great Grandmother cooked everything from scratch , repaired the home ( as in carpentry ) , made all the cloths by hand , washed them by hand , and cared for livestock at times when they had a milk cow .
By all accounts ( Aunts/Uncles/Grand parents/diaries ) both had an active social life as well.If you really have so little time after dealing with just two of your children that you do n't have time for your other two children I really question your use of time .
Surely there is a way to involve all four children in activities .
Surly there is a better way to manage your and your children time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My Grandmother had nine (9) surviving siblings (5 others died before their first birthday).
She describes both of her parents as loving and having spent a lot of time with her.
My Grand Uncles and Aunts all have similar descriptions.My Great Grandfather was a coal miner who worked 6 days a week for 12 hours a day.
My Great Grandmother cooked everything from scratch, repaired the home (as in carpentry), made all the cloths by hand, washed them by hand, and cared for livestock at times when they had a milk cow.
By all accounts (Aunts/Uncles/Grand parents/diaries) both had an active social life as well.If you really have so little time after dealing with just two of your children that you don't have time for your other two children I really question your use of time.
Surely there is a way to involve all four children in activities.
Surly there is a better way to manage your and your children time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31149500</id>
	<title>I'm not optimistic</title>
	<author>zblack\_eagle</author>
	<datestamp>1266232800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A number of factors are likely to keep Stephen Conroy in after the election this year.</p><p>In Australian election ballots for the senate we select one box above the line <b>or</b> number all the boxes below the line. To elaborate: below the line we number all of the possible candidates in order of preference (and we have to number <b>all</b> of them in order for that vote to be valid. Above the line we choose <b>one</b> political party who will  be choosing the below the line preferences for those voters. Such preferences are selected based on the principles of the political party, on a reciprocal basis or for attempted political gain. This was how we ended up with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve\_Fielding#2004\_Election" title="wikipedia.org">Steve Fielding</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>Due to the extreme number of senate candidates in Australian state and federal elections (last time I voted in the South Australian state election I think there was 46) most people elect to have their favoured political party choose their preferences for them. Based on the traditionalist attitudes of voters that revolve around biases, prejudices and/or traditionalism (my family has always voted for party X) the parties with the most senators tend to be Labor and Liberal, Conroy being a Labor senator who was elected even during the years that the Liberal/National Coalition had a majority in both houses of government.</p><p>As I now live in Victoria I'll certainly be voting in favour of candidates that are not him in the election some time this year. However I don't trust the preferences of other parties, nor do I want to re-elect members of the party of fear and xenophobia, so I'll be voting below the line.</p><p>But you can count on the majority voting above the line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A number of factors are likely to keep Stephen Conroy in after the election this year.In Australian election ballots for the senate we select one box above the line or number all the boxes below the line .
To elaborate : below the line we number all of the possible candidates in order of preference ( and we have to number all of them in order for that vote to be valid .
Above the line we choose one political party who will be choosing the below the line preferences for those voters .
Such preferences are selected based on the principles of the political party , on a reciprocal basis or for attempted political gain .
This was how we ended up with Steve Fielding [ wikipedia.org ] .Due to the extreme number of senate candidates in Australian state and federal elections ( last time I voted in the South Australian state election I think there was 46 ) most people elect to have their favoured political party choose their preferences for them .
Based on the traditionalist attitudes of voters that revolve around biases , prejudices and/or traditionalism ( my family has always voted for party X ) the parties with the most senators tend to be Labor and Liberal , Conroy being a Labor senator who was elected even during the years that the Liberal/National Coalition had a majority in both houses of government.As I now live in Victoria I 'll certainly be voting in favour of candidates that are not him in the election some time this year .
However I do n't trust the preferences of other parties , nor do I want to re-elect members of the party of fear and xenophobia , so I 'll be voting below the line.But you can count on the majority voting above the line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A number of factors are likely to keep Stephen Conroy in after the election this year.In Australian election ballots for the senate we select one box above the line or number all the boxes below the line.
To elaborate: below the line we number all of the possible candidates in order of preference (and we have to number all of them in order for that vote to be valid.
Above the line we choose one political party who will  be choosing the below the line preferences for those voters.
Such preferences are selected based on the principles of the political party, on a reciprocal basis or for attempted political gain.
This was how we ended up with Steve Fielding [wikipedia.org].Due to the extreme number of senate candidates in Australian state and federal elections (last time I voted in the South Australian state election I think there was 46) most people elect to have their favoured political party choose their preferences for them.
Based on the traditionalist attitudes of voters that revolve around biases, prejudices and/or traditionalism (my family has always voted for party X) the parties with the most senators tend to be Labor and Liberal, Conroy being a Labor senator who was elected even during the years that the Liberal/National Coalition had a majority in both houses of government.As I now live in Victoria I'll certainly be voting in favour of candidates that are not him in the election some time this year.
However I don't trust the preferences of other parties, nor do I want to re-elect members of the party of fear and xenophobia, so I'll be voting below the line.But you can count on the majority voting above the line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147524</id>
	<title>But the problem is</title>
	<author>nightfire-unique</author>
	<datestamp>1266266280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that we all have a different definition of "safe."</p><p>When I was growing up, my parents had a definition that included things like: good nutrition, outdoor exercise, avoiding physical violence, good hygene, "look both ways before crossing the street," etc.</p><p>Today's parents seem to be almost monomaniacally focused on sex and terror.</p><p>I don't know what that means long-term, but I don't think the Australian government, Yahoo, or Google should be helping us find out..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that we all have a different definition of " safe .
" When I was growing up , my parents had a definition that included things like : good nutrition , outdoor exercise , avoiding physical violence , good hygene , " look both ways before crossing the street , " etc.Today 's parents seem to be almost monomaniacally focused on sex and terror.I do n't know what that means long-term , but I do n't think the Australian government , Yahoo , or Google should be helping us find out. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that we all have a different definition of "safe.
"When I was growing up, my parents had a definition that included things like: good nutrition, outdoor exercise, avoiding physical violence, good hygene, "look both ways before crossing the street," etc.Today's parents seem to be almost monomaniacally focused on sex and terror.I don't know what that means long-term, but I don't think the Australian government, Yahoo, or Google should be helping us find out..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31150372</id>
	<title>Re:As a parent, I would like to make a suggestion.</title>
	<author>GoochOwnsYou</author>
	<datestamp>1266237660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And why is that our problem? Because you decided to have 4 kids you dont have time to look after properly makes it OK for the state to infringe on our liberties?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And why is that our problem ?
Because you decided to have 4 kids you dont have time to look after properly makes it OK for the state to infringe on our liberties ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And why is that our problem?
Because you decided to have 4 kids you dont have time to look after properly makes it OK for the state to infringe on our liberties?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148698</id>
	<title>Re:Make the Parents Responsible</title>
	<author>Tangentc</author>
	<datestamp>1266229020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because many bad parents would rather have a scapegoat to blame all of their troubles on than hear that they should have been parenting while little Billy was searching for filthy porn online.</p><p>Seriously, it may not be easy to raise kids, but don't blame the medium whenever your kid uses it to find questionable material. I like that the article mentioned an education program, which would probably be more effective and less costly than a massive filter anyway. It's just too bad that the knee-jerk reaction is always to censor.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Here in Canada </p></div><p>Though this reminds me, aren't we supposed to be blaming Canada?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because many bad parents would rather have a scapegoat to blame all of their troubles on than hear that they should have been parenting while little Billy was searching for filthy porn online.Seriously , it may not be easy to raise kids , but do n't blame the medium whenever your kid uses it to find questionable material .
I like that the article mentioned an education program , which would probably be more effective and less costly than a massive filter anyway .
It 's just too bad that the knee-jerk reaction is always to censor.Here in Canada Though this reminds me , are n't we supposed to be blaming Canada ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because many bad parents would rather have a scapegoat to blame all of their troubles on than hear that they should have been parenting while little Billy was searching for filthy porn online.Seriously, it may not be easy to raise kids, but don't blame the medium whenever your kid uses it to find questionable material.
I like that the article mentioned an education program, which would probably be more effective and less costly than a massive filter anyway.
It's just too bad that the knee-jerk reaction is always to censor.Here in Canada Though this reminds me, aren't we supposed to be blaming Canada?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148342</id>
	<title>Re:As a parent, I would like to make a suggestion.</title>
	<author>Max Romantschuk</author>
	<datestamp>1266227400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You either chose to have four children or you're an idiot.</p></div><p>I got the statistically improbable option: I have double twins.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p><p>But like most hardship you can make if work if you are serious about pulling through.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You either chose to have four children or you 're an idiot.I got the statistically improbable option : I have double twins .
: DBut like most hardship you can make if work if you are serious about pulling through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You either chose to have four children or you're an idiot.I got the statistically improbable option: I have double twins.
:DBut like most hardship you can make if work if you are serious about pulling through.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31150312</id>
	<title>Re:What about china?</title>
	<author>GoochOwnsYou</author>
	<datestamp>1266237180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> If China jumped off a bridge, would you follow him?</p> </div><p>Ask Kevin Rudd that, I would be interested in his answer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If China jumped off a bridge , would you follow him ?
Ask Kevin Rudd that , I would be interested in his answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If China jumped off a bridge, would you follow him?
Ask Kevin Rudd that, I would be interested in his answer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147938</id>
	<title>Re:As a parent, I would like to make a suggestion.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266225360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me throw a piece of reality back at you -</p><p>You either chose to have four children or you're an idiot.  I'm going to assume that you're not an idiot for the sake of this discussion and assume that it was your choice.</p><p>If you chose to bring four lives into this world without the ability to deal with it, that is, to be blunt, your own fucking problem.  You are the irresponsible one, and I don't see why any of the rest of us need to be forced by our government to live with censorship laws to "protect the children" just because you're an irresponsible nitwit who wanted to have four kids.  Frankly you should probably be apologizing to the rest of the world for having four kids when you by your own admission seem to only have the ability to properly raise two.</p><p>I've got one of my own and I know kids can be a handful.  That's why we have one.  Uno.  One kid.  One kid that we can focus on and make damn sure we can handle it.  We did not rush out to have four kids.  We might have a second one once we know whether we can handle one or not.  But to think that you might arrogantly go out and have four kids without bothering to figure out if you're going to be able to handle it just stuns me.  Unless you're an idiot.  In which case I apologize for the rant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me throw a piece of reality back at you -You either chose to have four children or you 're an idiot .
I 'm going to assume that you 're not an idiot for the sake of this discussion and assume that it was your choice.If you chose to bring four lives into this world without the ability to deal with it , that is , to be blunt , your own fucking problem .
You are the irresponsible one , and I do n't see why any of the rest of us need to be forced by our government to live with censorship laws to " protect the children " just because you 're an irresponsible nitwit who wanted to have four kids .
Frankly you should probably be apologizing to the rest of the world for having four kids when you by your own admission seem to only have the ability to properly raise two.I 've got one of my own and I know kids can be a handful .
That 's why we have one .
Uno. One kid .
One kid that we can focus on and make damn sure we can handle it .
We did not rush out to have four kids .
We might have a second one once we know whether we can handle one or not .
But to think that you might arrogantly go out and have four kids without bothering to figure out if you 're going to be able to handle it just stuns me .
Unless you 're an idiot .
In which case I apologize for the rant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me throw a piece of reality back at you -You either chose to have four children or you're an idiot.
I'm going to assume that you're not an idiot for the sake of this discussion and assume that it was your choice.If you chose to bring four lives into this world without the ability to deal with it, that is, to be blunt, your own fucking problem.
You are the irresponsible one, and I don't see why any of the rest of us need to be forced by our government to live with censorship laws to "protect the children" just because you're an irresponsible nitwit who wanted to have four kids.
Frankly you should probably be apologizing to the rest of the world for having four kids when you by your own admission seem to only have the ability to properly raise two.I've got one of my own and I know kids can be a handful.
That's why we have one.
Uno.  One kid.
One kid that we can focus on and make damn sure we can handle it.
We did not rush out to have four kids.
We might have a second one once we know whether we can handle one or not.
But to think that you might arrogantly go out and have four kids without bothering to figure out if you're going to be able to handle it just stuns me.
Unless you're an idiot.
In which case I apologize for the rant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147636</id>
	<title>Re:What about china?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266266880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>if china jumped off a bridge, my fall would be cushioned my a huge mountain of mushy human remnants, so why the heck not?</htmltext>
<tokenext>if china jumped off a bridge , my fall would be cushioned my a huge mountain of mushy human remnants , so why the heck not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if china jumped off a bridge, my fall would be cushioned my a huge mountain of mushy human remnants, so why the heck not?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147714</id>
	<title>Re:What about china?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266267360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Australia is still salvagable, China is a lost cause.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Australia is still salvagable , China is a lost cause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Australia is still salvagable, China is a lost cause.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148622</id>
	<title>Re:These people sure think about children alot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266228660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And all this talking about kiddie porn turns me on.</p><p>But seriously: no, it doesn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And all this talking about kiddie porn turns me on.But seriously : no , it does n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And all this talking about kiddie porn turns me on.But seriously: no, it doesn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31151174</id>
	<title>Re:As a parent, I would like to make a suggestion.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266244380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a parent (soon to be grandparent) I am not allowed to spend the time I would like with my children. I work, so does my wife. We tried the stay-at-home parent bit. It equals poverty and hardship in today's world. It is a neccessity to put food on the table &amp; keep a roof over our heads.</p><p>Also, my kids go to school (I know, I could home school but I have to earn income so how would that work?).</p><p>I have to cram my family life into a few hours out of each 24. Despite this my kids are moral, literate and creative. Part of their education now comes from the net. That's just the way it is today. At what age would you deem it safe to allow your kids to go online alone?</p><p>It is better to block what they should not be seeing bacuse it is simply impossible to be there all the time. At the same time you also need to establish moral discernment in your children but how would you do that. In my experience too many people regard what feels good = "right". It helps to have fixed standards (like the biblical 10 commandments) that are easy to teach and understand (even if the wording is now somewhat outdated).</p><p>Just my 10 cents</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a parent ( soon to be grandparent ) I am not allowed to spend the time I would like with my children .
I work , so does my wife .
We tried the stay-at-home parent bit .
It equals poverty and hardship in today 's world .
It is a neccessity to put food on the table &amp; keep a roof over our heads.Also , my kids go to school ( I know , I could home school but I have to earn income so how would that work ?
) .I have to cram my family life into a few hours out of each 24 .
Despite this my kids are moral , literate and creative .
Part of their education now comes from the net .
That 's just the way it is today .
At what age would you deem it safe to allow your kids to go online alone ? It is better to block what they should not be seeing bacuse it is simply impossible to be there all the time .
At the same time you also need to establish moral discernment in your children but how would you do that .
In my experience too many people regard what feels good = " right " .
It helps to have fixed standards ( like the biblical 10 commandments ) that are easy to teach and understand ( even if the wording is now somewhat outdated ) .Just my 10 cents</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a parent (soon to be grandparent) I am not allowed to spend the time I would like with my children.
I work, so does my wife.
We tried the stay-at-home parent bit.
It equals poverty and hardship in today's world.
It is a neccessity to put food on the table &amp; keep a roof over our heads.Also, my kids go to school (I know, I could home school but I have to earn income so how would that work?
).I have to cram my family life into a few hours out of each 24.
Despite this my kids are moral, literate and creative.
Part of their education now comes from the net.
That's just the way it is today.
At what age would you deem it safe to allow your kids to go online alone?It is better to block what they should not be seeing bacuse it is simply impossible to be there all the time.
At the same time you also need to establish moral discernment in your children but how would you do that.
In my experience too many people regard what feels good = "right".
It helps to have fixed standards (like the biblical 10 commandments) that are easy to teach and understand (even if the wording is now somewhat outdated).Just my 10 cents</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31149766</id>
	<title>I used to be opposed but ...</title>
	<author>thoughtspace</author>
	<datestamp>1266234000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have read the many responses that object to content filtering but I fear many forget that:</p><p>- you can not know what complete responsibility you have for another human being until you have your own children<br>- pedophiles etc have an addiction and/or psychological problem and they do not reason the same way as a sane person<br>- you can't let the very people who profit from attracting people to sites to self regulate, that is where the government has to step in</p><p>Parents are not internet experts. They do not have the skills to implement content filtering. The experts are the internet companies; but they have a vested interest in not filtering. So that leaves government and the content filtering software companies (but parents don't have the skills to select which program to buy - we just have to do our best).</p><p>Filtering is an imperfect science. A progressive percentage reduction in accessibility is how you break down the grouping the internet has given to otherwise isolated cases of pedophiles etc. There will be sites blocked which should not. Considering how little of the complete internet is actually viewed by any individual, I can't imagine how you would know the difference - it certainly wasn't there a mere 15 or so years ago. Companies web sites will change how they operate and check their site availability in advance - not unlike registering a business. Businesses have to manage these sorts of hurdles all the time - it is a risk of business and hence the source of return.</p><p>It is correct for governments to classify the content of material at the internet companies and ISPs. Magazines are controlled this way - the creator (hence profit maker) and distribution chain (the other profit makers) had to meet Australian standards. The most obvious example is 'sealed section' magazines and their location within newsagencies. The internet companies are not fighting for your freedom; they want to avoid the restriction that was placed on print media.</p><p>The other complaint about the Australian system is that the black list is confidential. I feel this is wrong, but thinking about it - how else could it work? Making the list public defeats the purpose. I know people, as I, believe there should be freedoms. But there is certainly material that definitely should not be available to children and, on an internet scale, a huge number of adults.</p><p>Probably the biggest problem was that the Governments reacted too slowly and it is painful to fix the problem now. But it was done for TV and print. The fact of the matter is that the amount of unrestricted extreme material has exploded since the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have read the many responses that object to content filtering but I fear many forget that : - you can not know what complete responsibility you have for another human being until you have your own children- pedophiles etc have an addiction and/or psychological problem and they do not reason the same way as a sane person- you ca n't let the very people who profit from attracting people to sites to self regulate , that is where the government has to step inParents are not internet experts .
They do not have the skills to implement content filtering .
The experts are the internet companies ; but they have a vested interest in not filtering .
So that leaves government and the content filtering software companies ( but parents do n't have the skills to select which program to buy - we just have to do our best ) .Filtering is an imperfect science .
A progressive percentage reduction in accessibility is how you break down the grouping the internet has given to otherwise isolated cases of pedophiles etc .
There will be sites blocked which should not .
Considering how little of the complete internet is actually viewed by any individual , I ca n't imagine how you would know the difference - it certainly was n't there a mere 15 or so years ago .
Companies web sites will change how they operate and check their site availability in advance - not unlike registering a business .
Businesses have to manage these sorts of hurdles all the time - it is a risk of business and hence the source of return.It is correct for governments to classify the content of material at the internet companies and ISPs .
Magazines are controlled this way - the creator ( hence profit maker ) and distribution chain ( the other profit makers ) had to meet Australian standards .
The most obvious example is 'sealed section ' magazines and their location within newsagencies .
The internet companies are not fighting for your freedom ; they want to avoid the restriction that was placed on print media.The other complaint about the Australian system is that the black list is confidential .
I feel this is wrong , but thinking about it - how else could it work ?
Making the list public defeats the purpose .
I know people , as I , believe there should be freedoms .
But there is certainly material that definitely should not be available to children and , on an internet scale , a huge number of adults.Probably the biggest problem was that the Governments reacted too slowly and it is painful to fix the problem now .
But it was done for TV and print .
The fact of the matter is that the amount of unrestricted extreme material has exploded since the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have read the many responses that object to content filtering but I fear many forget that:- you can not know what complete responsibility you have for another human being until you have your own children- pedophiles etc have an addiction and/or psychological problem and they do not reason the same way as a sane person- you can't let the very people who profit from attracting people to sites to self regulate, that is where the government has to step inParents are not internet experts.
They do not have the skills to implement content filtering.
The experts are the internet companies; but they have a vested interest in not filtering.
So that leaves government and the content filtering software companies (but parents don't have the skills to select which program to buy - we just have to do our best).Filtering is an imperfect science.
A progressive percentage reduction in accessibility is how you break down the grouping the internet has given to otherwise isolated cases of pedophiles etc.
There will be sites blocked which should not.
Considering how little of the complete internet is actually viewed by any individual, I can't imagine how you would know the difference - it certainly wasn't there a mere 15 or so years ago.
Companies web sites will change how they operate and check their site availability in advance - not unlike registering a business.
Businesses have to manage these sorts of hurdles all the time - it is a risk of business and hence the source of return.It is correct for governments to classify the content of material at the internet companies and ISPs.
Magazines are controlled this way - the creator (hence profit maker) and distribution chain (the other profit makers) had to meet Australian standards.
The most obvious example is 'sealed section' magazines and their location within newsagencies.
The internet companies are not fighting for your freedom; they want to avoid the restriction that was placed on print media.The other complaint about the Australian system is that the black list is confidential.
I feel this is wrong, but thinking about it - how else could it work?
Making the list public defeats the purpose.
I know people, as I, believe there should be freedoms.
But there is certainly material that definitely should not be available to children and, on an internet scale, a huge number of adults.Probably the biggest problem was that the Governments reacted too slowly and it is painful to fix the problem now.
But it was done for TV and print.
The fact of the matter is that the amount of unrestricted extreme material has exploded since the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31150312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31151034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31151558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31149766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31149762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31149532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31150910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31151880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31149770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31149736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31152372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31150574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31151574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31150144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31150182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31150372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31149852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31150324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31151164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31149500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31150164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31151214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31151866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31149806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31154018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31151174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31151480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31150702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31149376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31149278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31165630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31151334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1914251_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_1914251.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31150144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31151574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_1914251.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31150910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31165630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31149500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31151164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31149532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31150702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31151880
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_1914251.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31149766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31151558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_1914251.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31152372
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_1914251.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31149762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_1914251.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31150324
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_1914251.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147712
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_1914251.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31151174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147696
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147974
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31149736
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31150182
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31150372
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31151034
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31149376
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31149852
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147938
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148342
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148822
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31149806
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31151214
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148292
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31149770
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147848
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31151866
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147844
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31151334
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_1914251.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31150574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_1914251.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31149278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147474
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147636
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31150312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147714
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_1914251.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31151692
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_1914251.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147958
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148912
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31154018
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148818
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148150
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_1914251.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148876
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_1914251.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_1914251.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31147812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31151480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31150164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1914251.31148984
</commentlist>
</conversation>
