<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_23_1954227</id>
	<title>Simon Singh To Appeal In UK Court Today</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1266913920000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>TACD writes <i>"Simon Singh, author, television presenter and known critic of pseudoscience, is <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/feb/23/simon-singh-appeal">in court today</a> appealing the <a href="//science.slashdot.org/story/09/09/16/2043242/In-Britain-Better-Not-Call-It-Bogus-Science">decision made against him last May</a> over his use of the term 'bogus' to describe the methods used by the British Chiropractic Association. Today's decision could have far-reaching implications for the movement to <a href="http://libelreform.org/">reform Britain's horrifically outdated libel laws</a> (that even America is making moves to protect its citizens against), and to begin taking steps to elevate Britain above the likes of China when it comes to open debate and freedom of speech."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>TACD writes " Simon Singh , author , television presenter and known critic of pseudoscience , is in court today appealing the decision made against him last May over his use of the term 'bogus ' to describe the methods used by the British Chiropractic Association .
Today 's decision could have far-reaching implications for the movement to reform Britain 's horrifically outdated libel laws ( that even America is making moves to protect its citizens against ) , and to begin taking steps to elevate Britain above the likes of China when it comes to open debate and freedom of speech .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TACD writes "Simon Singh, author, television presenter and known critic of pseudoscience, is in court today appealing the decision made against him last May over his use of the term 'bogus' to describe the methods used by the British Chiropractic Association.
Today's decision could have far-reaching implications for the movement to reform Britain's horrifically outdated libel laws (that even America is making moves to protect its citizens against), and to begin taking steps to elevate Britain above the likes of China when it comes to open debate and freedom of speech.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249994</id>
	<title>Re:Humbug!</title>
	<author>idontgno</author>
	<datestamp>1266918300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>referring to them as assholes or motherfuckers ostensibly expresses an opinion </p><p>I dunno, I suspect someone might have considered an unsubstantiated accusation of incestuous sexual congress with one's own mother as factually slanderous. And then we'd see the limits of the "we didn't mean it literally" defense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>referring to them as assholes or motherfuckers ostensibly expresses an opinion I dunno , I suspect someone might have considered an unsubstantiated accusation of incestuous sexual congress with one 's own mother as factually slanderous .
And then we 'd see the limits of the " we did n't mean it literally " defense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>referring to them as assholes or motherfuckers ostensibly expresses an opinion I dunno, I suspect someone might have considered an unsubstantiated accusation of incestuous sexual congress with one's own mother as factually slanderous.
And then we'd see the limits of the "we didn't mean it literally" defense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31257506</id>
	<title>What's the problem, exactly..?</title>
	<author>oneandoneis2</author>
	<datestamp>1265111520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given that my view has always been that I'd rather live with the British libel laws than the American ones, I was interested by the existence of the website linked in the summary. So I went to look at it. I even downloaded the full report.</p><p>Know what? I still can't work out what the problem is. Maybe somebody can explain it to me?</p><p>As I understand it, if an American tabloid accuses me of being a baby-strangler, if I want to prosecute for libel, I have to prove that I'm not a baby-strangler - the tabloid is innocent until proven guilty, so I'm guilty until proven innocent. The burden of proof is on me.</p><p>Conversely, in England, if a British tabloid accuses me of being a baby-strangler, I just have to prove that they published something, and that it harmed my reputation - so taking in the copy of the paper and showing that it says something bad about me is all I have to do. At this point, the burden of proof is on the tabloid: They have to provide evidence that I'm a baby-strangler.</p><p>In other words, if British reporters want to be safe from libel, they can only make claims when they have evidence to back them up. If American reporters want to be safe, they just have to be fairly sure that their claim can't be disproved.</p><p>And we all know how easy it is to prove a negative.</p><p>Reading through the comments on here so far, I see a lot of nonsense written by people who have no clue what our laws are - most<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers seem to think that you can win a claim of libel even if you can prove that the 'libellous' statement was true, which is absolutely wrong.</p><p>So what exactly is the big problem with libel laws in Britain? Given that the website trying to reform it had no answers for me and there are a huge number of people here who seem very passionate on the subject, maybe one of you can explain it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that my view has always been that I 'd rather live with the British libel laws than the American ones , I was interested by the existence of the website linked in the summary .
So I went to look at it .
I even downloaded the full report.Know what ?
I still ca n't work out what the problem is .
Maybe somebody can explain it to me ? As I understand it , if an American tabloid accuses me of being a baby-strangler , if I want to prosecute for libel , I have to prove that I 'm not a baby-strangler - the tabloid is innocent until proven guilty , so I 'm guilty until proven innocent .
The burden of proof is on me.Conversely , in England , if a British tabloid accuses me of being a baby-strangler , I just have to prove that they published something , and that it harmed my reputation - so taking in the copy of the paper and showing that it says something bad about me is all I have to do .
At this point , the burden of proof is on the tabloid : They have to provide evidence that I 'm a baby-strangler.In other words , if British reporters want to be safe from libel , they can only make claims when they have evidence to back them up .
If American reporters want to be safe , they just have to be fairly sure that their claim ca n't be disproved.And we all know how easy it is to prove a negative.Reading through the comments on here so far , I see a lot of nonsense written by people who have no clue what our laws are - most /.ers seem to think that you can win a claim of libel even if you can prove that the 'libellous ' statement was true , which is absolutely wrong.So what exactly is the big problem with libel laws in Britain ?
Given that the website trying to reform it had no answers for me and there are a huge number of people here who seem very passionate on the subject , maybe one of you can explain it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that my view has always been that I'd rather live with the British libel laws than the American ones, I was interested by the existence of the website linked in the summary.
So I went to look at it.
I even downloaded the full report.Know what?
I still can't work out what the problem is.
Maybe somebody can explain it to me?As I understand it, if an American tabloid accuses me of being a baby-strangler, if I want to prosecute for libel, I have to prove that I'm not a baby-strangler - the tabloid is innocent until proven guilty, so I'm guilty until proven innocent.
The burden of proof is on me.Conversely, in England, if a British tabloid accuses me of being a baby-strangler, I just have to prove that they published something, and that it harmed my reputation - so taking in the copy of the paper and showing that it says something bad about me is all I have to do.
At this point, the burden of proof is on the tabloid: They have to provide evidence that I'm a baby-strangler.In other words, if British reporters want to be safe from libel, they can only make claims when they have evidence to back them up.
If American reporters want to be safe, they just have to be fairly sure that their claim can't be disproved.And we all know how easy it is to prove a negative.Reading through the comments on here so far, I see a lot of nonsense written by people who have no clue what our laws are - most /.ers seem to think that you can win a claim of libel even if you can prove that the 'libellous' statement was true, which is absolutely wrong.So what exactly is the big problem with libel laws in Britain?
Given that the website trying to reform it had no answers for me and there are a huge number of people here who seem very passionate on the subject, maybe one of you can explain it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251070</id>
	<title>Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron</title>
	<author>TACD</author>
	<datestamp>1266922080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously, anyone who can claim with a straight face that Britain has less freedom of speech than China (and hence is only beginning to take steps to elevate above it) is living in a fantasy world.</p></div><p> <i>"When it comes to censoring publications and blocking online content, it is arguable that Britain has an even worse record than China."</i> - from <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7294539/Simon-Singh-it-is-too-late-for-me-but-libel-laws-must-change-for-the-public-good.html" title="telegraph.co.uk">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7294539/Simon-Singh-it-is-too-late-for-me-but-libel-laws-must-change-for-the-public-good.html</a> [telegraph.co.uk] </p><p>However, yes, there may have been a trace of hyperbole in this post, on the internet. Gold star!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , anyone who can claim with a straight face that Britain has less freedom of speech than China ( and hence is only beginning to take steps to elevate above it ) is living in a fantasy world .
" When it comes to censoring publications and blocking online content , it is arguable that Britain has an even worse record than China .
" - from http : //www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7294539/Simon-Singh-it-is-too-late-for-me-but-libel-laws-must-change-for-the-public-good.html [ telegraph.co.uk ] However , yes , there may have been a trace of hyperbole in this post , on the internet .
Gold star !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, anyone who can claim with a straight face that Britain has less freedom of speech than China (and hence is only beginning to take steps to elevate above it) is living in a fantasy world.
"When it comes to censoring publications and blocking online content, it is arguable that Britain has an even worse record than China.
" - from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7294539/Simon-Singh-it-is-too-late-for-me-but-libel-laws-must-change-for-the-public-good.html [telegraph.co.uk] However, yes, there may have been a trace of hyperbole in this post, on the internet.
Gold star!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31265358</id>
	<title>Re:What a joke..</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265108520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, because if a spinal disc is dislocated, or something else is dislocated, moving it bach to the right position actually fixes things! (The headache is in this case just a extension of the back pain.)</p><p>Everything for its purpose. And for these things, chiropractics is the the exact right thing. That&rsquo;s its purpose. And it&rsquo;s 1000 times better than taking pain medication all day long without fixing the actual problem. (But hey, some people would take pain medication and continue running their head against a wall.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/)</p><p>As soon as it gets away from what&rsquo;s physically possible, it gets dumb. Like pressing <em>this</em> spot on your foot, to &ldquo;cure your gastric ulcer&rdquo;.<br>It&rsquo;s easy to spot, but hard to put in words. We all know it when we see it. At least if you know the rules of physics, logic and causality.<br>(By the way, in the above example, the pure illusion [placebo] could let a ulcer go away, if that ulcer was caused by stress because of irrational fears. [= something irrational can be fixed with something irrational]. Doesn&rsquo;t mean it has a real effect, though.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , because if a spinal disc is dislocated , or something else is dislocated , moving it bach to the right position actually fixes things !
( The headache is in this case just a extension of the back pain .
) Everything for its purpose .
And for these things , chiropractics is the the exact right thing .
That    s its purpose .
And it    s 1000 times better than taking pain medication all day long without fixing the actual problem .
( But hey , some people would take pain medication and continue running their head against a wall .
: / ) As soon as it gets away from what    s physically possible , it gets dumb .
Like pressing this spot on your foot , to    cure your gastric ulcer    .It    s easy to spot , but hard to put in words .
We all know it when we see it .
At least if you know the rules of physics , logic and causality .
( By the way , in the above example , the pure illusion [ placebo ] could let a ulcer go away , if that ulcer was caused by stress because of irrational fears .
[ = something irrational can be fixed with something irrational ] .
Doesn    t mean it has a real effect , though .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, because if a spinal disc is dislocated, or something else is dislocated, moving it bach to the right position actually fixes things!
(The headache is in this case just a extension of the back pain.
)Everything for its purpose.
And for these things, chiropractics is the the exact right thing.
That’s its purpose.
And it’s 1000 times better than taking pain medication all day long without fixing the actual problem.
(But hey, some people would take pain medication and continue running their head against a wall.
:/)As soon as it gets away from what’s physically possible, it gets dumb.
Like pressing this spot on your foot, to “cure your gastric ulcer”.It’s easy to spot, but hard to put in words.
We all know it when we see it.
At least if you know the rules of physics, logic and causality.
(By the way, in the above example, the pure illusion [placebo] could let a ulcer go away, if that ulcer was caused by stress because of irrational fears.
[= something irrational can be fixed with something irrational].
Doesn’t mean it has a real effect, though.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31279698</id>
	<title>Re:Humbug!</title>
	<author>JThundley</author>
	<datestamp>1267102500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Penn calls them "Baby twisting motherfuckers" because in the episode of Bullshit, a chiropractor performs his service on an infant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Penn calls them " Baby twisting motherfuckers " because in the episode of Bullshit , a chiropractor performs his service on an infant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Penn calls them "Baby twisting motherfuckers" because in the episode of Bullshit, a chiropractor performs his service on an infant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250006</id>
	<title>Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron</title>
	<author>bsDaemon</author>
	<datestamp>1266918300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know!  Britain has *just as much* freedom of speech as China does!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know !
Britain has * just as much * freedom of speech as China does !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know!
Britain has *just as much* freedom of speech as China does!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250092</id>
	<title>Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron</title>
	<author>wjousts</author>
	<datestamp>1266918600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed. Less free speech than China is clearly hyperbole. Libel laws are a complete mess and need reform but comparing freedom of speech in Britain to (lack of) freedom of speech in China adds nothing to the debate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
Less free speech than China is clearly hyperbole .
Libel laws are a complete mess and need reform but comparing freedom of speech in Britain to ( lack of ) freedom of speech in China adds nothing to the debate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
Less free speech than China is clearly hyperbole.
Libel laws are a complete mess and need reform but comparing freedom of speech in Britain to (lack of) freedom of speech in China adds nothing to the debate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251078</id>
	<title>Re:What a joke..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266922140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>All true - and also helped by the fact that chronic pain is one area where the placebo effect is particularly powerful.  Powerful enough to be effective in over 50\% of cases.  That will get you a lot of testimonials.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All true - and also helped by the fact that chronic pain is one area where the placebo effect is particularly powerful .
Powerful enough to be effective in over 50 \ % of cases .
That will get you a lot of testimonials .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All true - and also helped by the fact that chronic pain is one area where the placebo effect is particularly powerful.
Powerful enough to be effective in over 50\% of cases.
That will get you a lot of testimonials.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250946</id>
	<title>Re:Judge not impressed</title>
	<author>TACD</author>
	<datestamp>1266921720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, given that it is now approaching 9PM in the UK, it is more correct to say Simon Singh <em>was</em> in court today.  And so far things look promising &ndash; Lord Judge is less than impressed by BCA's case. See <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/02/simon-singh-chiropractic-bca-libel-appeal" title="indexoncensorship.org">http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/02/simon-singh-chiropractic-bca-libel-appeal</a> [indexoncensorship.org] </p></div><p>You got to posting the important link before me, so let me instead say that even if Simon wins this round there is still a whole lot more work to be done; firstly, this is only the appeal against the previous judge's decision of what was meant by his use of the word 'bogus', and a win here will just make the rest of the case easier to fight. Secondly, Britain still lacks a proper 'public interest' defense in these sorts of cases, and that is why it is important to support full and considered <a href="http://libelreform.org/" title="libelreform.org">libel reform</a> [libelreform.org] so that this ridiculous charade does not have to be repeated, at enormous expense, for every individual who would reasonably criticise his peers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , given that it is now approaching 9PM in the UK , it is more correct to say Simon Singh was in court today .
And so far things look promising    Lord Judge is less than impressed by BCA 's case .
See http : //www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/02/simon-singh-chiropractic-bca-libel-appeal [ indexoncensorship.org ] You got to posting the important link before me , so let me instead say that even if Simon wins this round there is still a whole lot more work to be done ; firstly , this is only the appeal against the previous judge 's decision of what was meant by his use of the word 'bogus ' , and a win here will just make the rest of the case easier to fight .
Secondly , Britain still lacks a proper 'public interest ' defense in these sorts of cases , and that is why it is important to support full and considered libel reform [ libelreform.org ] so that this ridiculous charade does not have to be repeated , at enormous expense , for every individual who would reasonably criticise his peers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, given that it is now approaching 9PM in the UK, it is more correct to say Simon Singh was in court today.
And so far things look promising – Lord Judge is less than impressed by BCA's case.
See http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/02/simon-singh-chiropractic-bca-libel-appeal [indexoncensorship.org] You got to posting the important link before me, so let me instead say that even if Simon wins this round there is still a whole lot more work to be done; firstly, this is only the appeal against the previous judge's decision of what was meant by his use of the word 'bogus', and a win here will just make the rest of the case easier to fight.
Secondly, Britain still lacks a proper 'public interest' defense in these sorts of cases, and that is why it is important to support full and considered libel reform [libelreform.org] so that this ridiculous charade does not have to be repeated, at enormous expense, for every individual who would reasonably criticise his peers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250446</id>
	<title>Re:Chiropratic is bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266920040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>In cadaver studies the whole pinched nerve thing was shown to be bogus. The amount a spine would have to be manipulated would cripple the subject.<br> <br>They now resort to "subluxations" which, again, have been shown to be bogus. In experiments with n subjects, some with and some without diagnosed "subluxations" were examined by n chiropractors.<br> <br>EVERY subject was diagnosed with a "subluxation" and rarely in the same spot.<br> <br>Bullshit all around.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In cadaver studies the whole pinched nerve thing was shown to be bogus .
The amount a spine would have to be manipulated would cripple the subject .
They now resort to " subluxations " which , again , have been shown to be bogus .
In experiments with n subjects , some with and some without diagnosed " subluxations " were examined by n chiropractors .
EVERY subject was diagnosed with a " subluxation " and rarely in the same spot .
Bullshit all around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In cadaver studies the whole pinched nerve thing was shown to be bogus.
The amount a spine would have to be manipulated would cripple the subject.
They now resort to "subluxations" which, again, have been shown to be bogus.
In experiments with n subjects, some with and some without diagnosed "subluxations" were examined by n chiropractors.
EVERY subject was diagnosed with a "subluxation" and rarely in the same spot.
Bullshit all around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31257240</id>
	<title>Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265108460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's because anyone in the UK who says that quietly disappea</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because anyone in the UK who says that quietly disappea</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because anyone in the UK who says that quietly disappea</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31252178</id>
	<title>Re:More Importantly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266926520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also 'Trick or Treatment', which he cowrote.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also 'Trick or Treatment ' , which he cowrote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also 'Trick or Treatment', which he cowrote.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251278</id>
	<title>Re:What a joke..</title>
	<author>Spad</author>
	<datestamp>1266922800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the subject: <a href="http://www.badscience.net/2010/02/the-bbc-have-found-someone-whose-cancer-was-cured-by-homeopathy/" title="badscience.net">http://www.badscience.net/2010/02/the-bbc-have-found-someone-whose-cancer-was-cured-by-homeopathy/</a> [badscience.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the subject : http : //www.badscience.net/2010/02/the-bbc-have-found-someone-whose-cancer-was-cured-by-homeopathy/ [ badscience.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the subject: http://www.badscience.net/2010/02/the-bbc-have-found-someone-whose-cancer-was-cured-by-homeopathy/ [badscience.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31258128</id>
	<title>Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron</title>
	<author>ConfusedVorlon</author>
	<datestamp>1265118660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A judge has just warned someone that they may see a custodial sentence for twittering the following</p><p>'Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!'</p><p><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/22/twitter\_bomb\_threat\_joke\_guilty/" title="theregister.co.uk">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/22/twitter\_bomb\_threat\_joke\_guilty/</a> [theregister.co.uk]</p><p>The context made it pretty clear that this was hardly a serious threat. A quick chat could have easily verified that it was just a foolish comment.</p><p>the prosecution at the case noted:</p><p>"He [Chambers] admitted posting the message into the public domain but never intended the message to be received by the airport or for them to take it seriously."</p><p>and "the message had no material impact on the airport"</p><p>so a chap writes a comment when he finds the airport is closed due to snow and he is due to fly in a week. He is banned from the airport for life, has computer, iphone, etc confiscated and may go to prison.</p><p>hurray for the system that keeps us safe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A judge has just warned someone that they may see a custodial sentence for twittering the following'Crap !
Robin Hood Airport is closed .
You 've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I 'm blowing the airport sky high !
'http : //www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/22/twitter \ _bomb \ _threat \ _joke \ _guilty/ [ theregister.co.uk ] The context made it pretty clear that this was hardly a serious threat .
A quick chat could have easily verified that it was just a foolish comment.the prosecution at the case noted : " He [ Chambers ] admitted posting the message into the public domain but never intended the message to be received by the airport or for them to take it seriously .
" and " the message had no material impact on the airport " so a chap writes a comment when he finds the airport is closed due to snow and he is due to fly in a week .
He is banned from the airport for life , has computer , iphone , etc confiscated and may go to prison.hurray for the system that keeps us safe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A judge has just warned someone that they may see a custodial sentence for twittering the following'Crap!
Robin Hood Airport is closed.
You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!
'http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/22/twitter\_bomb\_threat\_joke\_guilty/ [theregister.co.uk]The context made it pretty clear that this was hardly a serious threat.
A quick chat could have easily verified that it was just a foolish comment.the prosecution at the case noted:"He [Chambers] admitted posting the message into the public domain but never intended the message to be received by the airport or for them to take it seriously.
"and "the message had no material impact on the airport"so a chap writes a comment when he finds the airport is closed due to snow and he is due to fly in a week.
He is banned from the airport for life, has computer, iphone, etc confiscated and may go to prison.hurray for the system that keeps us safe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251114</id>
	<title>Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266922260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Truth is far stranger than fiction.</p><p>Perhaps it's you who is living in a fantasy world?  A world where you believe you have a freedom of speech?  Never mind other freedoms.  Have you ever tried to exercise this freedom of speech?</p><p>Let me do that for you, "THE US PRESIDENT IS AN ASSHOLE!  ISRAEL IS KILLING PALESTINIAN BABIES!"</p><p>There, does that make you feel proud?  Happy?  Secure?  Free?  Is that an example of free speech, a posting on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.  a couple of simple sentences?  Boy, if that's all it takes to make you happy and believing you have a legally protected Right... then you, my dear friend is much the fool.</p><p>Let's take it up a step further.  I walk down town, find a hill, raising 6 feet high, pull out a bull horn and announce controversial views to be heard around for blocks.  The views must be controversial, because otherwise the concept of free speech is masked by conformance of what those in power want you to believe; this is called effective free speech, something you apparently know nothing of.  Along with effective free speech comes the prospect of actually having people listen to you, and see your ways... you have to effect people, this is the part of free speech people do not understand, like you.  If you can't get someone else to see your ways, free speech or not... you're just mumbling to yourself, effectively.  And guess what?  Rebels and resistance has always mumbled to themselves, regardless of whatever freedoms they are claimed to have.</p><p>So there I am, speaking of controversial views (any view that makes people see things differently is controversial, or will soon become controversial; this I hope you do understand).</p><p>No one stops by, maybe a few that wish to yell back, nothing more than displaying their obedience to their cruel overlords.  Police see that my speech has no effect, so they elect to adhere to laws that best suits the situation (my controversial views aren't causing a ruckus), so by laws handed down, noise ordinance laws allows me to be as loud as I want till 10pm.  So then, I'm just wasting breath.</p><p>People start forming up around me, listening.  A few shy away, a few in the front start showing signs of comprehension and acceptance.  Now, the police again has elect the best course of action for the situation.  In this case, I'm enlightening the people, so the noise ordinance laws are ignored because I'm actually effecting people.  Now comes laws from the other side of the spectrum, assembly laws.  Do I have a permit to rally?  Do I have a permit for public announcement?  Noise ordinance laws are for private individuals with private interests, if I'm making a speech, then they do not apply to me in the same way.  Speech being justified by the congregation before me that has been formed.  Police aren't there to protect me, but those in power.  So they step in, grab the bull horn, and ask for permits.  If everyone disperses quietly and no lasting effect has been made on the sheep, then I get off with a warning.  But if there's any resistance, showing maybe I opened some eyes, then I go to jail, and maybe some of them too for disrupting the peace; among other laws such as not having a hundred different permits to legally be allowed to do such a thing.</p><p>Depending on the speech, if I anger the wrong people.  Then you have libel suits brought against me.  Maybe I garner the wrath in all the many forms from those that I anger.  The more effective my speech, the worse the wrath will be.</p><p>So, you see, you don't have freedom of speech.  Just because you can whisper what you want amongst the crowd of yelling fanatics, doesn't mean your thoughts are going to have any effect therefore pose any real threat to those in power.  You think you can change the world with your words, but you can't, and you won't even attempt to prove me wrong because you know I'm right.  Do everything you can to justify this believe you so long for.</p><p>In China, you think they don't have freedom of speech.  In China perhaps it's illegal to say the president is an</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Truth is far stranger than fiction.Perhaps it 's you who is living in a fantasy world ?
A world where you believe you have a freedom of speech ?
Never mind other freedoms .
Have you ever tried to exercise this freedom of speech ? Let me do that for you , " THE US PRESIDENT IS AN ASSHOLE !
ISRAEL IS KILLING PALESTINIAN BABIES !
" There , does that make you feel proud ?
Happy ? Secure ?
Free ? Is that an example of free speech , a posting on / .
a couple of simple sentences ?
Boy , if that 's all it takes to make you happy and believing you have a legally protected Right... then you , my dear friend is much the fool.Let 's take it up a step further .
I walk down town , find a hill , raising 6 feet high , pull out a bull horn and announce controversial views to be heard around for blocks .
The views must be controversial , because otherwise the concept of free speech is masked by conformance of what those in power want you to believe ; this is called effective free speech , something you apparently know nothing of .
Along with effective free speech comes the prospect of actually having people listen to you , and see your ways... you have to effect people , this is the part of free speech people do not understand , like you .
If you ca n't get someone else to see your ways , free speech or not... you 're just mumbling to yourself , effectively .
And guess what ?
Rebels and resistance has always mumbled to themselves , regardless of whatever freedoms they are claimed to have.So there I am , speaking of controversial views ( any view that makes people see things differently is controversial , or will soon become controversial ; this I hope you do understand ) .No one stops by , maybe a few that wish to yell back , nothing more than displaying their obedience to their cruel overlords .
Police see that my speech has no effect , so they elect to adhere to laws that best suits the situation ( my controversial views are n't causing a ruckus ) , so by laws handed down , noise ordinance laws allows me to be as loud as I want till 10pm .
So then , I 'm just wasting breath.People start forming up around me , listening .
A few shy away , a few in the front start showing signs of comprehension and acceptance .
Now , the police again has elect the best course of action for the situation .
In this case , I 'm enlightening the people , so the noise ordinance laws are ignored because I 'm actually effecting people .
Now comes laws from the other side of the spectrum , assembly laws .
Do I have a permit to rally ?
Do I have a permit for public announcement ?
Noise ordinance laws are for private individuals with private interests , if I 'm making a speech , then they do not apply to me in the same way .
Speech being justified by the congregation before me that has been formed .
Police are n't there to protect me , but those in power .
So they step in , grab the bull horn , and ask for permits .
If everyone disperses quietly and no lasting effect has been made on the sheep , then I get off with a warning .
But if there 's any resistance , showing maybe I opened some eyes , then I go to jail , and maybe some of them too for disrupting the peace ; among other laws such as not having a hundred different permits to legally be allowed to do such a thing.Depending on the speech , if I anger the wrong people .
Then you have libel suits brought against me .
Maybe I garner the wrath in all the many forms from those that I anger .
The more effective my speech , the worse the wrath will be.So , you see , you do n't have freedom of speech .
Just because you can whisper what you want amongst the crowd of yelling fanatics , does n't mean your thoughts are going to have any effect therefore pose any real threat to those in power .
You think you can change the world with your words , but you ca n't , and you wo n't even attempt to prove me wrong because you know I 'm right .
Do everything you can to justify this believe you so long for.In China , you think they do n't have freedom of speech .
In China perhaps it 's illegal to say the president is an</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Truth is far stranger than fiction.Perhaps it's you who is living in a fantasy world?
A world where you believe you have a freedom of speech?
Never mind other freedoms.
Have you ever tried to exercise this freedom of speech?Let me do that for you, "THE US PRESIDENT IS AN ASSHOLE!
ISRAEL IS KILLING PALESTINIAN BABIES!
"There, does that make you feel proud?
Happy?  Secure?
Free?  Is that an example of free speech, a posting on /.
a couple of simple sentences?
Boy, if that's all it takes to make you happy and believing you have a legally protected Right... then you, my dear friend is much the fool.Let's take it up a step further.
I walk down town, find a hill, raising 6 feet high, pull out a bull horn and announce controversial views to be heard around for blocks.
The views must be controversial, because otherwise the concept of free speech is masked by conformance of what those in power want you to believe; this is called effective free speech, something you apparently know nothing of.
Along with effective free speech comes the prospect of actually having people listen to you, and see your ways... you have to effect people, this is the part of free speech people do not understand, like you.
If you can't get someone else to see your ways, free speech or not... you're just mumbling to yourself, effectively.
And guess what?
Rebels and resistance has always mumbled to themselves, regardless of whatever freedoms they are claimed to have.So there I am, speaking of controversial views (any view that makes people see things differently is controversial, or will soon become controversial; this I hope you do understand).No one stops by, maybe a few that wish to yell back, nothing more than displaying their obedience to their cruel overlords.
Police see that my speech has no effect, so they elect to adhere to laws that best suits the situation (my controversial views aren't causing a ruckus), so by laws handed down, noise ordinance laws allows me to be as loud as I want till 10pm.
So then, I'm just wasting breath.People start forming up around me, listening.
A few shy away, a few in the front start showing signs of comprehension and acceptance.
Now, the police again has elect the best course of action for the situation.
In this case, I'm enlightening the people, so the noise ordinance laws are ignored because I'm actually effecting people.
Now comes laws from the other side of the spectrum, assembly laws.
Do I have a permit to rally?
Do I have a permit for public announcement?
Noise ordinance laws are for private individuals with private interests, if I'm making a speech, then they do not apply to me in the same way.
Speech being justified by the congregation before me that has been formed.
Police aren't there to protect me, but those in power.
So they step in, grab the bull horn, and ask for permits.
If everyone disperses quietly and no lasting effect has been made on the sheep, then I get off with a warning.
But if there's any resistance, showing maybe I opened some eyes, then I go to jail, and maybe some of them too for disrupting the peace; among other laws such as not having a hundred different permits to legally be allowed to do such a thing.Depending on the speech, if I anger the wrong people.
Then you have libel suits brought against me.
Maybe I garner the wrath in all the many forms from those that I anger.
The more effective my speech, the worse the wrath will be.So, you see, you don't have freedom of speech.
Just because you can whisper what you want amongst the crowd of yelling fanatics, doesn't mean your thoughts are going to have any effect therefore pose any real threat to those in power.
You think you can change the world with your words, but you can't, and you won't even attempt to prove me wrong because you know I'm right.
Do everything you can to justify this believe you so long for.In China, you think they don't have freedom of speech.
In China perhaps it's illegal to say the president is an</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31259228</id>
	<title>Getting the lump</title>
	<author>GerryHattrick</author>
	<datestamp>1265125860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The wife had a bad shoulder, and a Chiropractor helped a lot each time she visited.  Then she found the breast lump herself and after a little neat surgery and some big radiation - no more bad shoulder!  We still wonder whether an earlier diagnosis would have been safer, whether it's wisest to try conservative treatment first on something with no other symptoms, or whether the lymphatic surgery just happened to cut a nerve so coincidentally the shoulder's better too.  Sadly one cannot be one's own 'control'.  Moral - don't ever delay a 'Classic' diagnosis.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The wife had a bad shoulder , and a Chiropractor helped a lot each time she visited .
Then she found the breast lump herself and after a little neat surgery and some big radiation - no more bad shoulder !
We still wonder whether an earlier diagnosis would have been safer , whether it 's wisest to try conservative treatment first on something with no other symptoms , or whether the lymphatic surgery just happened to cut a nerve so coincidentally the shoulder 's better too .
Sadly one can not be one 's own 'control' .
Moral - do n't ever delay a 'Classic ' diagnosis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The wife had a bad shoulder, and a Chiropractor helped a lot each time she visited.
Then she found the breast lump herself and after a little neat surgery and some big radiation - no more bad shoulder!
We still wonder whether an earlier diagnosis would have been safer, whether it's wisest to try conservative treatment first on something with no other symptoms, or whether the lymphatic surgery just happened to cut a nerve so coincidentally the shoulder's better too.
Sadly one cannot be one's own 'control'.
Moral - don't ever delay a 'Classic' diagnosis.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31255934</id>
	<title>Re:Humbug!</title>
	<author>sumdumass</author>
	<datestamp>1266950580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure incest could legitimately be claimed by anyone. In grade school when we heard of motherfucker, we had a saying that I'm sure most everyone else has probably heard, Mother fucker I may be, but the mother I fuck, isn't the mother of me. Basically, if you're married with children, you can be a motherfucker, if you like milfs, you're a motherfucker (could be anyways), or if you're just being insulted generically, your a motherfucker, and all this is without a bit of incest being involved. And with thanks to modern liberalism where teens are having sex more often, it's hard to find a single woman of legal age that hasn't had a kid or two unless you're surfing for them outside the highschool parking lot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure incest could legitimately be claimed by anyone .
In grade school when we heard of motherfucker , we had a saying that I 'm sure most everyone else has probably heard , Mother fucker I may be , but the mother I fuck , is n't the mother of me .
Basically , if you 're married with children , you can be a motherfucker , if you like milfs , you 're a motherfucker ( could be anyways ) , or if you 're just being insulted generically , your a motherfucker , and all this is without a bit of incest being involved .
And with thanks to modern liberalism where teens are having sex more often , it 's hard to find a single woman of legal age that has n't had a kid or two unless you 're surfing for them outside the highschool parking lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure incest could legitimately be claimed by anyone.
In grade school when we heard of motherfucker, we had a saying that I'm sure most everyone else has probably heard, Mother fucker I may be, but the mother I fuck, isn't the mother of me.
Basically, if you're married with children, you can be a motherfucker, if you like milfs, you're a motherfucker (could be anyways), or if you're just being insulted generically, your a motherfucker, and all this is without a bit of incest being involved.
And with thanks to modern liberalism where teens are having sex more often, it's hard to find a single woman of legal age that hasn't had a kid or two unless you're surfing for them outside the highschool parking lot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31253344</id>
	<title>Re:What the Judge Said...</title>
	<author>16K Ram Pack</author>
	<datestamp>1266931980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it's not about them providing evidence that their solutions work. It's entirely possible for someone to honestly believe that something works and to naively supply it because of gut instinct that it does.</p><p>The matter is the word "bogus". I've checked the OED on "bogus", and it's quite clear.</p><p>Incidentally, the BCA didn't just dump this on Singh. They were happy to reach an amicable settlement, which probably would have involved the retraction or explanation of "bogus", which he was not prepared to do. Instead, he wanted to debate the science, which was not the point. It was about character.</p><p>You should check what libel law says in the UK regarding truth. There is a defence of "justification", that the matter is in the public interest and that what has been stated can be proven. Google "patricia tierney" who was a woman that The Sun claimed was a prostitute. The case was thrown out after it was revealed that she had admitted this to the police in a statement 2 years earlier.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's not about them providing evidence that their solutions work .
It 's entirely possible for someone to honestly believe that something works and to naively supply it because of gut instinct that it does.The matter is the word " bogus " .
I 've checked the OED on " bogus " , and it 's quite clear.Incidentally , the BCA did n't just dump this on Singh .
They were happy to reach an amicable settlement , which probably would have involved the retraction or explanation of " bogus " , which he was not prepared to do .
Instead , he wanted to debate the science , which was not the point .
It was about character.You should check what libel law says in the UK regarding truth .
There is a defence of " justification " , that the matter is in the public interest and that what has been stated can be proven .
Google " patricia tierney " who was a woman that The Sun claimed was a prostitute .
The case was thrown out after it was revealed that she had admitted this to the police in a statement 2 years earlier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's not about them providing evidence that their solutions work.
It's entirely possible for someone to honestly believe that something works and to naively supply it because of gut instinct that it does.The matter is the word "bogus".
I've checked the OED on "bogus", and it's quite clear.Incidentally, the BCA didn't just dump this on Singh.
They were happy to reach an amicable settlement, which probably would have involved the retraction or explanation of "bogus", which he was not prepared to do.
Instead, he wanted to debate the science, which was not the point.
It was about character.You should check what libel law says in the UK regarding truth.
There is a defence of "justification", that the matter is in the public interest and that what has been stated can be proven.
Google "patricia tierney" who was a woman that The Sun claimed was a prostitute.
The case was thrown out after it was revealed that she had admitted this to the police in a statement 2 years earlier.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250214</id>
	<title>Judge not impressed</title>
	<author>rugatero</author>
	<datestamp>1266919080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Simon Singh, author, television presenter and known critic of pseudoscience, is in court today...</p> </div><p>Well, given that it is now approaching 9PM in the UK, it is more correct to say Simon Singh <em>was</em> in court today.  And so far things look promising &ndash; Lord Judge is less than impressed by BCA's case. See <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/02/simon-singh-chiropractic-bca-libel-appeal" title="indexoncensorship.org">http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/02/simon-singh-chiropractic-bca-libel-appeal</a> [indexoncensorship.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Simon Singh , author , television presenter and known critic of pseudoscience , is in court today... Well , given that it is now approaching 9PM in the UK , it is more correct to say Simon Singh was in court today .
And so far things look promising    Lord Judge is less than impressed by BCA 's case .
See http : //www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/02/simon-singh-chiropractic-bca-libel-appeal [ indexoncensorship.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Simon Singh, author, television presenter and known critic of pseudoscience, is in court today... Well, given that it is now approaching 9PM in the UK, it is more correct to say Simon Singh was in court today.
And so far things look promising – Lord Judge is less than impressed by BCA's case.
See http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/02/simon-singh-chiropractic-bca-libel-appeal [indexoncensorship.org]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31256724</id>
	<title>Re:At the risk of being called a troll...</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1265102220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And that's the point.  Singh has to prove facts that go well beyond his knowledge, despite overwhelming common-sense evidence on his side.  No sort of justice is being served by a legal system in which one cannot call a spade a spade roundly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And that 's the point .
Singh has to prove facts that go well beyond his knowledge , despite overwhelming common-sense evidence on his side .
No sort of justice is being served by a legal system in which one can not call a spade a spade roundly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that's the point.
Singh has to prove facts that go well beyond his knowledge, despite overwhelming common-sense evidence on his side.
No sort of justice is being served by a legal system in which one cannot call a spade a spade roundly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250386</id>
	<title>Re:What a joke..</title>
	<author>jockeys</author>
	<datestamp>1266919740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>it depends on the claims being made.  for instance, the chiropractor I go to makes no claims beyond being able to help you if you throw your back out, and I have found these claims to be justified.  anecdotal I know, but not every single chiropractor out there is as you describe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>it depends on the claims being made .
for instance , the chiropractor I go to makes no claims beyond being able to help you if you throw your back out , and I have found these claims to be justified .
anecdotal I know , but not every single chiropractor out there is as you describe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it depends on the claims being made.
for instance, the chiropractor I go to makes no claims beyond being able to help you if you throw your back out, and I have found these claims to be justified.
anecdotal I know, but not every single chiropractor out there is as you describe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250168</id>
	<title>Two And A Half Men</title>
	<author>Citizen of Earth</author>
	<datestamp>1266918960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is "Two And A Half Men" broadcast in the UK?  One of the main characters is a chiropractor and most of the other characters say libelous things about his profession.  Where are the lawsuits over this?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is " Two And A Half Men " broadcast in the UK ?
One of the main characters is a chiropractor and most of the other characters say libelous things about his profession .
Where are the lawsuits over this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is "Two And A Half Men" broadcast in the UK?
One of the main characters is a chiropractor and most of the other characters say libelous things about his profession.
Where are the lawsuits over this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31257196</id>
	<title>Re:What the Judge Said...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265107920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to Wikipedia, Libel only exists in England and Wales. Scotland treats it as defamation as does the US - guess the US is also below China on freedom of speech .</p><p>In fairness I've never met an American who can tell the difference between the UK and England. I guess we should refer to the entire US as...I dunno, Florida?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to Wikipedia , Libel only exists in England and Wales .
Scotland treats it as defamation as does the US - guess the US is also below China on freedom of speech .In fairness I 've never met an American who can tell the difference between the UK and England .
I guess we should refer to the entire US as...I dunno , Florida ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to Wikipedia, Libel only exists in England and Wales.
Scotland treats it as defamation as does the US - guess the US is also below China on freedom of speech .In fairness I've never met an American who can tell the difference between the UK and England.
I guess we should refer to the entire US as...I dunno, Florida?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250472</id>
	<title>Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266920160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this is the country where saying a horse looks 'gay' is liable to get you a <a href="http://www.secularism.org.uk/nowsayingahorseisgaycangetyoujai.html" title="secularism.org.uk" rel="nofollow">3-month jail sentence</a> [secularism.org.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is the country where saying a horse looks 'gay ' is liable to get you a 3-month jail sentence [ secularism.org.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is the country where saying a horse looks 'gay' is liable to get you a 3-month jail sentence [secularism.org.uk]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250830</id>
	<title>Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron</title>
	<author>got2liv4him</author>
	<datestamp>1266921360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought it was obvious from the "even America" remark that the author of the summary has a certain leaning or agenda...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought it was obvious from the " even America " remark that the author of the summary has a certain leaning or agenda.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought it was obvious from the "even America" remark that the author of the summary has a certain leaning or agenda...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251600</id>
	<title>bogus science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266924000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have experienced severe back pain in the past. I have never had an instance where "cracking the back" has made any difference whatsoever. They also tried some little clicker device that sent light punches to my back, to no effect. Occasionally, I will feel some relief from the accompanying massage... and I think that is where most people who swear by a chiropractor get their positive experience from.</p><p>Note: I'm not talking about physical damage to the back... that requires real doctors (not chiropractor specific). I'm just talking about the muscles, tendons and general tightness above.</p><p>By far, the best way to get rid of back pain is through light stretching and exercise of the back. I have a 2 page set of stretches to do on the floor, standing and in a chair. I now no longer ever need to pay a chiropractor for their specialty any more. Instead I follow the stretches on my sheet and just go to a massage therapist when required (which is never now).</p><p>I think the real bogus issue is why we are not taught how easy and cheap it is to resolve most back pain.</p><p>To be clear though... (in my opinion, hehe)... Chiropractors are not bogus. They work hard for their titles and offer relief to many of their patients. Unlike the homeopathy crowd, who in my opinion are the biggest bogus quacks on the take. At least every one I visited on advice from someone else was completely bogus. Unbelievably, laughing with me when I explain how their scientific explanation was impossible for the devices they used... and how easy it is to prove that. One doctor even advised me to go to a homeopathic quack... I returned to tell him never to assign another patient to this bogus bogus bogus non-science money stealing snake oil seller.</p><p>And for that homeo dick... if you're listening: No, I am not allergic to milk/dairy. and Yes, you are a bogus quack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have experienced severe back pain in the past .
I have never had an instance where " cracking the back " has made any difference whatsoever .
They also tried some little clicker device that sent light punches to my back , to no effect .
Occasionally , I will feel some relief from the accompanying massage... and I think that is where most people who swear by a chiropractor get their positive experience from.Note : I 'm not talking about physical damage to the back... that requires real doctors ( not chiropractor specific ) .
I 'm just talking about the muscles , tendons and general tightness above.By far , the best way to get rid of back pain is through light stretching and exercise of the back .
I have a 2 page set of stretches to do on the floor , standing and in a chair .
I now no longer ever need to pay a chiropractor for their specialty any more .
Instead I follow the stretches on my sheet and just go to a massage therapist when required ( which is never now ) .I think the real bogus issue is why we are not taught how easy and cheap it is to resolve most back pain.To be clear though... ( in my opinion , hehe ) ... Chiropractors are not bogus .
They work hard for their titles and offer relief to many of their patients .
Unlike the homeopathy crowd , who in my opinion are the biggest bogus quacks on the take .
At least every one I visited on advice from someone else was completely bogus .
Unbelievably , laughing with me when I explain how their scientific explanation was impossible for the devices they used... and how easy it is to prove that .
One doctor even advised me to go to a homeopathic quack... I returned to tell him never to assign another patient to this bogus bogus bogus non-science money stealing snake oil seller.And for that homeo dick... if you 're listening : No , I am not allergic to milk/dairy .
and Yes , you are a bogus quack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have experienced severe back pain in the past.
I have never had an instance where "cracking the back" has made any difference whatsoever.
They also tried some little clicker device that sent light punches to my back, to no effect.
Occasionally, I will feel some relief from the accompanying massage... and I think that is where most people who swear by a chiropractor get their positive experience from.Note: I'm not talking about physical damage to the back... that requires real doctors (not chiropractor specific).
I'm just talking about the muscles, tendons and general tightness above.By far, the best way to get rid of back pain is through light stretching and exercise of the back.
I have a 2 page set of stretches to do on the floor, standing and in a chair.
I now no longer ever need to pay a chiropractor for their specialty any more.
Instead I follow the stretches on my sheet and just go to a massage therapist when required (which is never now).I think the real bogus issue is why we are not taught how easy and cheap it is to resolve most back pain.To be clear though... (in my opinion, hehe)... Chiropractors are not bogus.
They work hard for their titles and offer relief to many of their patients.
Unlike the homeopathy crowd, who in my opinion are the biggest bogus quacks on the take.
At least every one I visited on advice from someone else was completely bogus.
Unbelievably, laughing with me when I explain how their scientific explanation was impossible for the devices they used... and how easy it is to prove that.
One doctor even advised me to go to a homeopathic quack... I returned to tell him never to assign another patient to this bogus bogus bogus non-science money stealing snake oil seller.And for that homeo dick... if you're listening: No, I am not allergic to milk/dairy.
and Yes, you are a bogus quack.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250580</id>
	<title>Re:[citation needed]</title>
	<author>Lunix Nutcase</author>
	<datestamp>1266920580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean other than the dearth of peer-reviewed medical studies to back up the claims?  You seem to have the burden of proof backwards.  Until they can provide some double-blind studies that prove the efficacy of the treatment, there is no reason to accept any of it as fact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean other than the dearth of peer-reviewed medical studies to back up the claims ?
You seem to have the burden of proof backwards .
Until they can provide some double-blind studies that prove the efficacy of the treatment , there is no reason to accept any of it as fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean other than the dearth of peer-reviewed medical studies to back up the claims?
You seem to have the burden of proof backwards.
Until they can provide some double-blind studies that prove the efficacy of the treatment, there is no reason to accept any of it as fact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31252590</id>
	<title>Re:What a joke..</title>
	<author>jamesswift</author>
	<datestamp>1266928440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe it's making things worse</p><p><a href="http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2008/06/13/chiro-lawsuit.html" title="www.cbc.ca" rel="nofollow">http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2008/06/13/chiro-lawsuit.html</a> [www.cbc.ca]</p><p>"A woman who says she became paralyzed after having her upper spine manipulated is suing the Alberta College and Association of Chiropractors and the provincial government for half a billion dollars."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's making things worsehttp : //www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2008/06/13/chiro-lawsuit.html [ www.cbc.ca ] " A woman who says she became paralyzed after having her upper spine manipulated is suing the Alberta College and Association of Chiropractors and the provincial government for half a billion dollars .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's making things worsehttp://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2008/06/13/chiro-lawsuit.html [www.cbc.ca]"A woman who says she became paralyzed after having her upper spine manipulated is suing the Alberta College and Association of Chiropractors and the provincial government for half a billion dollars.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31252276</id>
	<title>Re:More Importantly</title>
	<author>Quantumstate</author>
	<datestamp>1266926940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The theorem is remarkably simple to state.  It was definitely explained very early in the book.  The technical details needed for the proof are pretty advanced maths which would be basically impossible to explain to a layman without teaching a lot of maths after which they would no longer be a layman.  So the book is about the history of the problem, since this is the only reasonable thing to write.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The theorem is remarkably simple to state .
It was definitely explained very early in the book .
The technical details needed for the proof are pretty advanced maths which would be basically impossible to explain to a layman without teaching a lot of maths after which they would no longer be a layman .
So the book is about the history of the problem , since this is the only reasonable thing to write .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The theorem is remarkably simple to state.
It was definitely explained very early in the book.
The technical details needed for the proof are pretty advanced maths which would be basically impossible to explain to a layman without teaching a lot of maths after which they would no longer be a layman.
So the book is about the history of the problem, since this is the only reasonable thing to write.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31256828</id>
	<title>Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron</title>
	<author>iangoldby</author>
	<datestamp>1265103540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You seem to mean by 'freedom of speech' something more like 'a right to be heard' or 'a right to an audience'. And probably 'a right to a platform' from which to expound your controversial views.</p><p>I profoundly disagree that these rights exist. The reason is simple. If you have a right to be heard, then someone else has the responsibility to do the hearing. If you have the right to a platform, the someone else has the responsibility to provide the platform. What makes you so privileged that someone else must provide these for you?</p><p>Do you stop every time you pass a street preacher and listen carefully until he has finished? After all, it is your responsibility to do so if you believe that you also have a right to be heard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You seem to mean by 'freedom of speech ' something more like 'a right to be heard ' or 'a right to an audience' .
And probably 'a right to a platform ' from which to expound your controversial views.I profoundly disagree that these rights exist .
The reason is simple .
If you have a right to be heard , then someone else has the responsibility to do the hearing .
If you have the right to a platform , the someone else has the responsibility to provide the platform .
What makes you so privileged that someone else must provide these for you ? Do you stop every time you pass a street preacher and listen carefully until he has finished ?
After all , it is your responsibility to do so if you believe that you also have a right to be heard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seem to mean by 'freedom of speech' something more like 'a right to be heard' or 'a right to an audience'.
And probably 'a right to a platform' from which to expound your controversial views.I profoundly disagree that these rights exist.
The reason is simple.
If you have a right to be heard, then someone else has the responsibility to do the hearing.
If you have the right to a platform, the someone else has the responsibility to provide the platform.
What makes you so privileged that someone else must provide these for you?Do you stop every time you pass a street preacher and listen carefully until he has finished?
After all, it is your responsibility to do so if you believe that you also have a right to be heard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251122</id>
	<title>Re:[citation needed]</title>
	<author>XxtraLarGe</author>
	<datestamp>1266922260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is it your opinion or experiences you're stating? Otherwise, can you supply those claims with evidence or references?</p></div><p>I don't subscribe to all the claims chiropractic makes concerning the benefits of chiropractic care, but it helps with a lot of things. I have had horrible tension headaches or even trouble breathing because of neck or back pain, and those were almost instantly removed after getting an adjustment. For that purpose, it's well worth it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it your opinion or experiences you 're stating ?
Otherwise , can you supply those claims with evidence or references ? I do n't subscribe to all the claims chiropractic makes concerning the benefits of chiropractic care , but it helps with a lot of things .
I have had horrible tension headaches or even trouble breathing because of neck or back pain , and those were almost instantly removed after getting an adjustment .
For that purpose , it 's well worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it your opinion or experiences you're stating?
Otherwise, can you supply those claims with evidence or references?I don't subscribe to all the claims chiropractic makes concerning the benefits of chiropractic care, but it helps with a lot of things.
I have had horrible tension headaches or even trouble breathing because of neck or back pain, and those were almost instantly removed after getting an adjustment.
For that purpose, it's well worth it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31306544</id>
	<title>Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267378500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must be a blast at parties. No really, are you really this miserable on a continuous basis? Get laid and take off the tinfoil hat. The man isn't keeping you down, you are keeping you down. Fool.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must be a blast at parties .
No really , are you really this miserable on a continuous basis ?
Get laid and take off the tinfoil hat .
The man is n't keeping you down , you are keeping you down .
Fool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must be a blast at parties.
No really, are you really this miserable on a continuous basis?
Get laid and take off the tinfoil hat.
The man isn't keeping you down, you are keeping you down.
Fool.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249922</id>
	<title>A question for the limeys:</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1266918000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how is it your famously pugilistic press can survive in this walking-on-eggshells libel law environment?</p><p>the british press seems especially mean and nasty, but you would think they'd all be cupcakes with the legal environment they work in</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how is it your famously pugilistic press can survive in this walking-on-eggshells libel law environment ? the british press seems especially mean and nasty , but you would think they 'd all be cupcakes with the legal environment they work in</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how is it your famously pugilistic press can survive in this walking-on-eggshells libel law environment?the british press seems especially mean and nasty, but you would think they'd all be cupcakes with the legal environment they work in</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249858</id>
	<title>Summary writer is a full blown moron</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266917760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, anyone who can claim with a straight face that Britain has less freedom of speech than China (and hence is only beginning to take steps to elevate above it) is living in a fantasy world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , anyone who can claim with a straight face that Britain has less freedom of speech than China ( and hence is only beginning to take steps to elevate above it ) is living in a fantasy world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, anyone who can claim with a straight face that Britain has less freedom of speech than China (and hence is only beginning to take steps to elevate above it) is living in a fantasy world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251372</id>
	<title>Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron</title>
	<author>TACD</author>
	<datestamp>1266923160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously, anyone who can claim with a straight face that Britain has less freedom of speech than China (and hence is only beginning to take steps to elevate above it) is living in a fantasy world.</p></div><p> <i>"When it comes to censoring publications and blocking online content, it is arguable that Britain has an even worse record than China."</i> - Simon Singh, from <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7294539/Simon-Singh-it-is-too-late-for-me-but-libel-laws-must-change-for-the-public-good.html" title="telegraph.co.uk">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7294539/Simon-Singh-it-is-too-late-for-me-but-libel-laws-must-change-for-the-public-good.html</a> [telegraph.co.uk] </p><p>But yes, there may have been a trace of hyperbole in my post, on the internet. Gold star!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , anyone who can claim with a straight face that Britain has less freedom of speech than China ( and hence is only beginning to take steps to elevate above it ) is living in a fantasy world .
" When it comes to censoring publications and blocking online content , it is arguable that Britain has an even worse record than China .
" - Simon Singh , from http : //www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7294539/Simon-Singh-it-is-too-late-for-me-but-libel-laws-must-change-for-the-public-good.html [ telegraph.co.uk ] But yes , there may have been a trace of hyperbole in my post , on the internet .
Gold star !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, anyone who can claim with a straight face that Britain has less freedom of speech than China (and hence is only beginning to take steps to elevate above it) is living in a fantasy world.
"When it comes to censoring publications and blocking online content, it is arguable that Britain has an even worse record than China.
" - Simon Singh, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7294539/Simon-Singh-it-is-too-late-for-me-but-libel-laws-must-change-for-the-public-good.html [telegraph.co.uk] But yes, there may have been a trace of hyperbole in my post, on the internet.
Gold star!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251162</id>
	<title>Re:What the Judge Said...</title>
	<author>whoever57</author>
	<datestamp>1266922440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>please, please rtfa. the key issue here is the meaning of 'bogus' and if it meant that the bca members knew that chiropractic does not work.</p><p>it's the bca's knowledge and the meaning of bogus that the court will decide. the truth of the singh's claim is key, but the court has to decide what singh was claiming -- and to decide what singh was claiming, the court must decide what 'bogus' meant in this context.</p><p>so truth is a defense -- but it's a different truth to your simplistic view.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>please , please rtfa .
the key issue here is the meaning of 'bogus ' and if it meant that the bca members knew that chiropractic does not work.it 's the bca 's knowledge and the meaning of bogus that the court will decide .
the truth of the singh 's claim is key , but the court has to decide what singh was claiming -- and to decide what singh was claiming , the court must decide what 'bogus ' meant in this context.so truth is a defense -- but it 's a different truth to your simplistic view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>please, please rtfa.
the key issue here is the meaning of 'bogus' and if it meant that the bca members knew that chiropractic does not work.it's the bca's knowledge and the meaning of bogus that the court will decide.
the truth of the singh's claim is key, but the court has to decide what singh was claiming -- and to decide what singh was claiming, the court must decide what 'bogus' meant in this context.so truth is a defense -- but it's a different truth to your simplistic view.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251362</id>
	<title>Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron</title>
	<author>Nathrael</author>
	<datestamp>1266923040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't remember asking you a GOD DAMN THING!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't remember asking you a GOD DAMN THING !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't remember asking you a GOD DAMN THING!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250176</id>
	<title>What the Judge Said...</title>
	<author>16K Ram Pack</author>
	<datestamp>1266918960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Everyone knows what bogus treatments are. They are not merely treatments which have proved less effective than they were at first thought to be, or which have been shown by the subsequent acquisition of more detailed scientific knowledge to be ineffective. Bogus treatments equate to quack remedies; that is to say they are dishonestly presented to a trusting and, in some respects perhaps, vulnerable public as having proven efficacy in the treatment of certain conditions or illnesses, when it is known that there is nothing to support such claims.</p></div><p>Please, get this story right, people. It's not about whether these remedies work or not. It's the implication that they offer them, knowing full well that they don't work.<br>Here's the OED definition of bogus:</p><p>

<i>pretending to be real or genuine</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone knows what bogus treatments are .
They are not merely treatments which have proved less effective than they were at first thought to be , or which have been shown by the subsequent acquisition of more detailed scientific knowledge to be ineffective .
Bogus treatments equate to quack remedies ; that is to say they are dishonestly presented to a trusting and , in some respects perhaps , vulnerable public as having proven efficacy in the treatment of certain conditions or illnesses , when it is known that there is nothing to support such claims.Please , get this story right , people .
It 's not about whether these remedies work or not .
It 's the implication that they offer them , knowing full well that they do n't work.Here 's the OED definition of bogus : pretending to be real or genuine</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone knows what bogus treatments are.
They are not merely treatments which have proved less effective than they were at first thought to be, or which have been shown by the subsequent acquisition of more detailed scientific knowledge to be ineffective.
Bogus treatments equate to quack remedies; that is to say they are dishonestly presented to a trusting and, in some respects perhaps, vulnerable public as having proven efficacy in the treatment of certain conditions or illnesses, when it is known that there is nothing to support such claims.Please, get this story right, people.
It's not about whether these remedies work or not.
It's the implication that they offer them, knowing full well that they don't work.Here's the OED definition of bogus:

pretending to be real or genuine
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250886</id>
	<title>At the risk of being called a troll...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266921540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to agree with the court.  The court's ruling is based on the finding that Singh implied that chiropractors were deliberately misleading people.  Singh denies this, but I can't really believe his claim.  He totally meant it in the manner the court took it.  So it's down to libel law, which is pretty simple here.  Singh made a damning accusation, which is believable to reasonable people (probably because it's so likely true).  The BCA replied with a libel suit.  The burden of proof lies on Singh, because even though the BCA brought the suit, it was Singh who made the original accusation.  Singh cannot provide proof - in fact his original statement was based on the fact that there is no scientific proof that chiropractors provide health benefits.  There's also no proof that they don't (there's evidence, but not proof).  While this is a good reason to argue that libel law needs to be reexamined; as the law stands now, I cannot see Singh winning this case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to agree with the court .
The court 's ruling is based on the finding that Singh implied that chiropractors were deliberately misleading people .
Singh denies this , but I ca n't really believe his claim .
He totally meant it in the manner the court took it .
So it 's down to libel law , which is pretty simple here .
Singh made a damning accusation , which is believable to reasonable people ( probably because it 's so likely true ) .
The BCA replied with a libel suit .
The burden of proof lies on Singh , because even though the BCA brought the suit , it was Singh who made the original accusation .
Singh can not provide proof - in fact his original statement was based on the fact that there is no scientific proof that chiropractors provide health benefits .
There 's also no proof that they do n't ( there 's evidence , but not proof ) .
While this is a good reason to argue that libel law needs to be reexamined ; as the law stands now , I can not see Singh winning this case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to agree with the court.
The court's ruling is based on the finding that Singh implied that chiropractors were deliberately misleading people.
Singh denies this, but I can't really believe his claim.
He totally meant it in the manner the court took it.
So it's down to libel law, which is pretty simple here.
Singh made a damning accusation, which is believable to reasonable people (probably because it's so likely true).
The BCA replied with a libel suit.
The burden of proof lies on Singh, because even though the BCA brought the suit, it was Singh who made the original accusation.
Singh cannot provide proof - in fact his original statement was based on the fact that there is no scientific proof that chiropractors provide health benefits.
There's also no proof that they don't (there's evidence, but not proof).
While this is a good reason to argue that libel law needs to be reexamined; as the law stands now, I cannot see Singh winning this case.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251184</id>
	<title>umm</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1266922500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i> (that even America is making moves to protect its citizens against)</i>
<br>
<br>
Why the "even"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>( that even America is making moves to protect its citizens against ) Why the " even " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> (that even America is making moves to protect its citizens against)


Why the "even"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31253596</id>
	<title>Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron</title>
	<author>wiredlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1266933240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be bogus to claim otherwise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be bogus to claim otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be bogus to claim otherwise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31252862</id>
	<title>Re:More Importantly</title>
	<author>madprof</author>
	<datestamp>1266929700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you read the book or did you just scan every other word in each sentence?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you read the book or did you just scan every other word in each sentence ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you read the book or did you just scan every other word in each sentence?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250488</id>
	<title>Re:What a joke..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266920220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fair enough.  I'm in the UK too.  However, I would like to say the following: homoeopathy is fraud.  I work in the science section of a large bookshop in Edinburgh, I should be easy enough to find and will identify myself if asked.<br> <br>

Bring on the lawyers.  I could intentionally produce a fraudulent, counterfeit, fake homoeopathic remedy (ie a small phial of water), but it would be indistinguishable from a "real" one.  I would welcome a court's attention to the matter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fair enough .
I 'm in the UK too .
However , I would like to say the following : homoeopathy is fraud .
I work in the science section of a large bookshop in Edinburgh , I should be easy enough to find and will identify myself if asked .
Bring on the lawyers .
I could intentionally produce a fraudulent , counterfeit , fake homoeopathic remedy ( ie a small phial of water ) , but it would be indistinguishable from a " real " one .
I would welcome a court 's attention to the matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fair enough.
I'm in the UK too.
However, I would like to say the following: homoeopathy is fraud.
I work in the science section of a large bookshop in Edinburgh, I should be easy enough to find and will identify myself if asked.
Bring on the lawyers.
I could intentionally produce a fraudulent, counterfeit, fake homoeopathic remedy (ie a small phial of water), but it would be indistinguishable from a "real" one.
I would welcome a court's attention to the matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31257824</id>
	<title>Re:What a joke..</title>
	<author>shilly</author>
	<datestamp>1265115300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know how you can be so definitive about acupuncture being nothing more than an invasive placebo -- it doesn't tally with the literature. Have a look at the excellent reviews on the fabulous Cochrane website. <a href="http://www.cochrane.org/" title="cochrane.org">http://www.cochrane.org/</a> [cochrane.org]</p><p>See the review of trials looking at the P6 point and post-operative nausea, for example.</p><p>It's currently in the category of "seems to work for certain things, but we don't really know why".</p><p>Quite different from chiropractic, which has bugger all evidence of efficacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know how you can be so definitive about acupuncture being nothing more than an invasive placebo -- it does n't tally with the literature .
Have a look at the excellent reviews on the fabulous Cochrane website .
http : //www.cochrane.org/ [ cochrane.org ] See the review of trials looking at the P6 point and post-operative nausea , for example.It 's currently in the category of " seems to work for certain things , but we do n't really know why " .Quite different from chiropractic , which has bugger all evidence of efficacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know how you can be so definitive about acupuncture being nothing more than an invasive placebo -- it doesn't tally with the literature.
Have a look at the excellent reviews on the fabulous Cochrane website.
http://www.cochrane.org/ [cochrane.org]See the review of trials looking at the P6 point and post-operative nausea, for example.It's currently in the category of "seems to work for certain things, but we don't really know why".Quite different from chiropractic, which has bugger all evidence of efficacy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251168</id>
	<title>Re:What the Judge Said...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266922440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've got that arse-backwards, I'm afraid.</p><p>

Under English Law, one may say untrue things about someone and not be liable (sic) for libel (sic).  This would be true if you said Ian Huntley (a convicted child killer)  is into beastiality, for example. He has such a lousy reputation anyway, it's impossible to further tarnish it, however outrageous a lie about him one tells.
</p><p>
But truth is an absolute defense against the charge of libel and slander in England, as it is (I imagine) everywhere.  It's what it means; to libel (sic) is to tell a damaging untruth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've got that arse-backwards , I 'm afraid .
Under English Law , one may say untrue things about someone and not be liable ( sic ) for libel ( sic ) .
This would be true if you said Ian Huntley ( a convicted child killer ) is into beastiality , for example .
He has such a lousy reputation anyway , it 's impossible to further tarnish it , however outrageous a lie about him one tells .
But truth is an absolute defense against the charge of libel and slander in England , as it is ( I imagine ) everywhere .
It 's what it means ; to libel ( sic ) is to tell a damaging untruth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've got that arse-backwards, I'm afraid.
Under English Law, one may say untrue things about someone and not be liable (sic) for libel (sic).
This would be true if you said Ian Huntley (a convicted child killer)  is into beastiality, for example.
He has such a lousy reputation anyway, it's impossible to further tarnish it, however outrageous a lie about him one tells.
But truth is an absolute defense against the charge of libel and slander in England, as it is (I imagine) everywhere.
It's what it means; to libel (sic) is to tell a damaging untruth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31260636</id>
	<title>Re:What the Judge Said...</title>
	<author>goose-incarnated</author>
	<datestamp>1265132160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the British Chiropractic Association claim the use of chiropractic works for certain children&rsquo;s ailments such as asthma, colic, and frequent ear infections, but refuse to provide any evidence that they do then one can only presume that they knew full well that that they don't work and are hence bogus.</p><p>However this is immaterial to the case. In England and Wales (could be different in Scotland as we have a different legal system) the mere fact that Simon Singh's claim whether right or wrong was made and has damaged the claimant aka liabled him to the general public is all that is required in theory for the BCA to win. <b>Truth is no defence against liable in England and Wales</b>.</p></div><p>
AIUI, we copied the text of the law from England as far as libel goes, and truth is a defence <i>if it's in the public interest</i>. This certainly qualifies as that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the British Chiropractic Association claim the use of chiropractic works for certain children    s ailments such as asthma , colic , and frequent ear infections , but refuse to provide any evidence that they do then one can only presume that they knew full well that that they do n't work and are hence bogus.However this is immaterial to the case .
In England and Wales ( could be different in Scotland as we have a different legal system ) the mere fact that Simon Singh 's claim whether right or wrong was made and has damaged the claimant aka liabled him to the general public is all that is required in theory for the BCA to win .
Truth is no defence against liable in England and Wales .
AIUI , we copied the text of the law from England as far as libel goes , and truth is a defence if it 's in the public interest .
This certainly qualifies as that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the British Chiropractic Association claim the use of chiropractic works for certain children’s ailments such as asthma, colic, and frequent ear infections, but refuse to provide any evidence that they do then one can only presume that they knew full well that that they don't work and are hence bogus.However this is immaterial to the case.
In England and Wales (could be different in Scotland as we have a different legal system) the mere fact that Simon Singh's claim whether right or wrong was made and has damaged the claimant aka liabled him to the general public is all that is required in theory for the BCA to win.
Truth is no defence against liable in England and Wales.
AIUI, we copied the text of the law from England as far as libel goes, and truth is a defence if it's in the public interest.
This certainly qualifies as that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250554</id>
	<title>Re:What the Judge Said...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266920460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the British Chiropractic Association claim the use of chiropractic works for certain children&rsquo;s ailments such as asthma, colic, and frequent ear infections, but refuse to provide any evidence that they do then one can only presume that they knew full well that that they don't work and are hence bogus.</p><p>However this is immaterial to the case. In England and Wales (could be different in Scotland as we have a different legal system) the mere fact that Simon Singh's claim whether right or wrong was made and has damaged the claimant aka liabled him to the general public is all that is required in theory for the BCA to win. Truth is no defence against liable in England and Wales.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the British Chiropractic Association claim the use of chiropractic works for certain children    s ailments such as asthma , colic , and frequent ear infections , but refuse to provide any evidence that they do then one can only presume that they knew full well that that they do n't work and are hence bogus.However this is immaterial to the case .
In England and Wales ( could be different in Scotland as we have a different legal system ) the mere fact that Simon Singh 's claim whether right or wrong was made and has damaged the claimant aka liabled him to the general public is all that is required in theory for the BCA to win .
Truth is no defence against liable in England and Wales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the British Chiropractic Association claim the use of chiropractic works for certain children’s ailments such as asthma, colic, and frequent ear infections, but refuse to provide any evidence that they do then one can only presume that they knew full well that that they don't work and are hence bogus.However this is immaterial to the case.
In England and Wales (could be different in Scotland as we have a different legal system) the mere fact that Simon Singh's claim whether right or wrong was made and has damaged the claimant aka liabled him to the general public is all that is required in theory for the BCA to win.
Truth is no defence against liable in England and Wales.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250478</id>
	<title>Re:What a joke..</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1266920160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hoemopathy has been scientifically disproven, but not accupuncture. In fact, many mainstream physicians use it these days; it has been tested and found effective. Chiropracy clearly won't do anything for any ailment not related to bones or nerves, such as cholic or cancer, but if you have an aching back it can do wonders. I know several people who had surgeons tell them surgery was their only recourse, only to have a chiropractor fix them good as new. At least one (my dad) was extremely skeptical of chiropracty but gave it a shot anyway, and the results spoke for themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hoemopathy has been scientifically disproven , but not accupuncture .
In fact , many mainstream physicians use it these days ; it has been tested and found effective .
Chiropracy clearly wo n't do anything for any ailment not related to bones or nerves , such as cholic or cancer , but if you have an aching back it can do wonders .
I know several people who had surgeons tell them surgery was their only recourse , only to have a chiropractor fix them good as new .
At least one ( my dad ) was extremely skeptical of chiropracty but gave it a shot anyway , and the results spoke for themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hoemopathy has been scientifically disproven, but not accupuncture.
In fact, many mainstream physicians use it these days; it has been tested and found effective.
Chiropracy clearly won't do anything for any ailment not related to bones or nerves, such as cholic or cancer, but if you have an aching back it can do wonders.
I know several people who had surgeons tell them surgery was their only recourse, only to have a chiropractor fix them good as new.
At least one (my dad) was extremely skeptical of chiropracty but gave it a shot anyway, and the results spoke for themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31259862</id>
	<title>chiropractice is medicine</title>
	<author>uiuyhn8i8</author>
	<datestamp>1265128680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If chiropractice is bogus or not of course depends on what they say they cure. I haven't checked every chiropractor here in sweden but generally they are definitely serious and fix real problems when for example discs in your back are out of alignment and nerves become pinched. They are part of the medical establishment. And as someone from a family with serious back problems I say thank good for swedish chiropractors. It's either bed-ridden with maximum dosage of morphine or going to a chiropractor to fix it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If chiropractice is bogus or not of course depends on what they say they cure .
I have n't checked every chiropractor here in sweden but generally they are definitely serious and fix real problems when for example discs in your back are out of alignment and nerves become pinched .
They are part of the medical establishment .
And as someone from a family with serious back problems I say thank good for swedish chiropractors .
It 's either bed-ridden with maximum dosage of morphine or going to a chiropractor to fix it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If chiropractice is bogus or not of course depends on what they say they cure.
I haven't checked every chiropractor here in sweden but generally they are definitely serious and fix real problems when for example discs in your back are out of alignment and nerves become pinched.
They are part of the medical establishment.
And as someone from a family with serious back problems I say thank good for swedish chiropractors.
It's either bed-ridden with maximum dosage of morphine or going to a chiropractor to fix it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251500</id>
	<title>Re:What a joke..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266923640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hoemopathy has been scientifically disproven, but not accupuncture. In fact, many mainstream physicians use it these days; it has been tested and found effective.</p></div><p>They also found that a chimpanzee in a white coat poking you with toothpicks was every bit as effective as a trained doctor using needles on meridian points and all that nonsense.</p><p>Acupuncture works as a placebo.  It's been well documented that the more invasive a placebo is, the more "effective" it is.  Me hitting you in the head with a rubber mallet is more likely to "cure" your headache than if you just took a sugar pill, but neither one actually has any real effect.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I know several people who had surgeons tell them surgery was their only recourse, only to have a chiropractor fix them good as new.</p></div><p>I know several people who swear that some plastic gizmo in their air-intake doubles their gas mileage.  If you're going to base your understanding of reality on the testimony of idiots, you're going to make a lot of frauds and scam-artists very happy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hoemopathy has been scientifically disproven , but not accupuncture .
In fact , many mainstream physicians use it these days ; it has been tested and found effective.They also found that a chimpanzee in a white coat poking you with toothpicks was every bit as effective as a trained doctor using needles on meridian points and all that nonsense.Acupuncture works as a placebo .
It 's been well documented that the more invasive a placebo is , the more " effective " it is .
Me hitting you in the head with a rubber mallet is more likely to " cure " your headache than if you just took a sugar pill , but neither one actually has any real effect.I know several people who had surgeons tell them surgery was their only recourse , only to have a chiropractor fix them good as new.I know several people who swear that some plastic gizmo in their air-intake doubles their gas mileage .
If you 're going to base your understanding of reality on the testimony of idiots , you 're going to make a lot of frauds and scam-artists very happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hoemopathy has been scientifically disproven, but not accupuncture.
In fact, many mainstream physicians use it these days; it has been tested and found effective.They also found that a chimpanzee in a white coat poking you with toothpicks was every bit as effective as a trained doctor using needles on meridian points and all that nonsense.Acupuncture works as a placebo.
It's been well documented that the more invasive a placebo is, the more "effective" it is.
Me hitting you in the head with a rubber mallet is more likely to "cure" your headache than if you just took a sugar pill, but neither one actually has any real effect.I know several people who had surgeons tell them surgery was their only recourse, only to have a chiropractor fix them good as new.I know several people who swear that some plastic gizmo in their air-intake doubles their gas mileage.
If you're going to base your understanding of reality on the testimony of idiots, you're going to make a lot of frauds and scam-artists very happy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250220</id>
	<title>[citation needed]</title>
	<author>xerent\_sweden</author>
	<datestamp>1266919080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it your opinion or experiences you're stating? Otherwise, can you supply those claims with evidence or references?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it your opinion or experiences you 're stating ?
Otherwise , can you supply those claims with evidence or references ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it your opinion or experiences you're stating?
Otherwise, can you supply those claims with evidence or references?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31252040</id>
	<title>Re:[citation needed]</title>
	<author>yurtinus</author>
	<datestamp>1266925800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree, I'd need proof that "pinched nerves" is an actual ailment before I buy into these wonky ideas that chiropracty is good for anything.
<br> <br>
See a proper ortho doctor and see if (s)he prescribes a chiropractor. Some do, but for specific ailments and as part of a specific treatment. Friends don't let friends mess with each others spines.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , I 'd need proof that " pinched nerves " is an actual ailment before I buy into these wonky ideas that chiropracty is good for anything .
See a proper ortho doctor and see if ( s ) he prescribes a chiropractor .
Some do , but for specific ailments and as part of a specific treatment .
Friends do n't let friends mess with each others spines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, I'd need proof that "pinched nerves" is an actual ailment before I buy into these wonky ideas that chiropracty is good for anything.
See a proper ortho doctor and see if (s)he prescribes a chiropractor.
Some do, but for specific ailments and as part of a specific treatment.
Friends don't let friends mess with each others spines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250824</id>
	<title>Re:A question for the limeys:</title>
	<author>Spad</author>
	<datestamp>1266921360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The press are very careful to refer to "alleged" actions and "reported" events and make it clear that they are only expressing an opinion and not stating "fact", which will get you around most of the libel laws in the UK.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The press are very careful to refer to " alleged " actions and " reported " events and make it clear that they are only expressing an opinion and not stating " fact " , which will get you around most of the libel laws in the UK .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The press are very careful to refer to "alleged" actions and "reported" events and make it clear that they are only expressing an opinion and not stating "fact", which will get you around most of the libel laws in the UK.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250346</id>
	<title>Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron</title>
	<author>Conspiracy\_Of\_Doves</author>
	<datestamp>1266919620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hyperbole, Motherfucker! DO YOU SPEAK IT?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hyperbole , Motherfucker !
DO YOU SPEAK IT ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hyperbole, Motherfucker!
DO YOU SPEAK IT?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250050</id>
	<title>Chiroprators</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266918420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are a few conditions a Chiropractic practitioner is good for, e.g. pinched nerves. However, their contention that manipulating the spine can fix virtually any condition is, er, properly described as "bogus".</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a few conditions a Chiropractic practitioner is good for , e.g .
pinched nerves .
However , their contention that manipulating the spine can fix virtually any condition is , er , properly described as " bogus " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a few conditions a Chiropractic practitioner is good for, e.g.
pinched nerves.
However, their contention that manipulating the spine can fix virtually any condition is, er, properly described as "bogus".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250860</id>
	<title>Chiropractic = Quackery</title>
	<author>Low Ranked Craig</author>
	<datestamp>1266921480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chiropractic feels good and can be used to temporarily release muscle tension, but you're never going to make me believe that an adjustment on a chiropractor's table lasts beyond using your muscles to get up off the table and walk out of the office.  You're better off with deep tissue massage which actually has lasting effects, but DT Massage is often uncomfortable or downright painful, unlike chiropractic.  So called "Network Chiropractic" is complete bullshit.  The idea that a chiropractor can tap or push on my spine to fix my liver or kidneys is utterly fucking stupid.  These guys need to be lumped in with homeopathic "doctors", right behind "spiritual healers", performers of Reiki and Scientology's "touch assist".</p><p>Holy fuck there are a lot of gullible people on the planet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chiropractic feels good and can be used to temporarily release muscle tension , but you 're never going to make me believe that an adjustment on a chiropractor 's table lasts beyond using your muscles to get up off the table and walk out of the office .
You 're better off with deep tissue massage which actually has lasting effects , but DT Massage is often uncomfortable or downright painful , unlike chiropractic .
So called " Network Chiropractic " is complete bullshit .
The idea that a chiropractor can tap or push on my spine to fix my liver or kidneys is utterly fucking stupid .
These guys need to be lumped in with homeopathic " doctors " , right behind " spiritual healers " , performers of Reiki and Scientology 's " touch assist " .Holy fuck there are a lot of gullible people on the planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chiropractic feels good and can be used to temporarily release muscle tension, but you're never going to make me believe that an adjustment on a chiropractor's table lasts beyond using your muscles to get up off the table and walk out of the office.
You're better off with deep tissue massage which actually has lasting effects, but DT Massage is often uncomfortable or downright painful, unlike chiropractic.
So called "Network Chiropractic" is complete bullshit.
The idea that a chiropractor can tap or push on my spine to fix my liver or kidneys is utterly fucking stupid.
These guys need to be lumped in with homeopathic "doctors", right behind "spiritual healers", performers of Reiki and Scientology's "touch assist".Holy fuck there are a lot of gullible people on the planet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31252802</id>
	<title>Re:What a joke..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266929400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your example is one where chiropractors make sense - have a back pain, go see a back doctor. The problem is that many practitioners then extend that to totally unrelated body systems.</p><p>In the classic<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. car analogy, your girlfriend's case is like getting new tires because your car has poor traction. Many chiros will, however, claim that changing the tires will make the headlights brighter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your example is one where chiropractors make sense - have a back pain , go see a back doctor .
The problem is that many practitioners then extend that to totally unrelated body systems.In the classic / .
car analogy , your girlfriend 's case is like getting new tires because your car has poor traction .
Many chiros will , however , claim that changing the tires will make the headlights brighter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your example is one where chiropractors make sense - have a back pain, go see a back doctor.
The problem is that many practitioners then extend that to totally unrelated body systems.In the classic /.
car analogy, your girlfriend's case is like getting new tires because your car has poor traction.
Many chiros will, however, claim that changing the tires will make the headlights brighter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251386</id>
	<title>Re:Judge not impressed</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1266923160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's probably hard to be impressed by anything at all when your formal title and name works out to be <b>Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge</b>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's probably hard to be impressed by anything at all when your formal title and name works out to be Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's probably hard to be impressed by anything at all when your formal title and name works out to be Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249904</id>
	<title>Humbug!</title>
	<author>calibre-not-output</author>
	<datestamp>1266917880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This reminds me of the first episode of Penn &amp; Teller: Bullshit! when Penn explains why they call people "motherfuckers" and "assholes" instead of liars, frauds, quacks, etc.<br> <br>

Quoted from Wikipedia:<br>

Since their act is not normally associated with a frequent use of profanity, Jillette explains their choice of using the term bullshit  in the opening episode: if they referred to people as frauds or liars, they could be sued for slander, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of chicanery, but as "vulgar abuse" is not legally considered slanderous, referring to them as assholes  or motherfuckers ostensibly expresses an opinion rather than a statement of fact and is legally safer for them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me of the first episode of Penn &amp; Teller : Bullshit !
when Penn explains why they call people " motherfuckers " and " assholes " instead of liars , frauds , quacks , etc .
Quoted from Wikipedia : Since their act is not normally associated with a frequent use of profanity , Jillette explains their choice of using the term bullshit in the opening episode : if they referred to people as frauds or liars , they could be sued for slander , even in the face of overwhelming evidence of chicanery , but as " vulgar abuse " is not legally considered slanderous , referring to them as assholes or motherfuckers ostensibly expresses an opinion rather than a statement of fact and is legally safer for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me of the first episode of Penn &amp; Teller: Bullshit!
when Penn explains why they call people "motherfuckers" and "assholes" instead of liars, frauds, quacks, etc.
Quoted from Wikipedia:

Since their act is not normally associated with a frequent use of profanity, Jillette explains their choice of using the term bullshit  in the opening episode: if they referred to people as frauds or liars, they could be sued for slander, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of chicanery, but as "vulgar abuse" is not legally considered slanderous, referring to them as assholes  or motherfuckers ostensibly expresses an opinion rather than a statement of fact and is legally safer for them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249876</id>
	<title>More Importantly</title>
	<author>JamesP</author>
	<datestamp>1266917820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simon Singh is the author of VERY COOL books:</p><p>Fermat's Last Theorem<br>and<br>The Code Book</p><p>(those are the ones I read, at least)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simon Singh is the author of VERY COOL books : Fermat 's Last TheoremandThe Code Book ( those are the ones I read , at least )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simon Singh is the author of VERY COOL books:Fermat's Last TheoremandThe Code Book(those are the ones I read, at least)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251098</id>
	<title>Re:Humbug!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266922200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This reminds me of the first episode of Penn &amp; Teller: Bullshit! when Penn explains why they call people "motherfuckers" and "assholes" instead of liars, frauds, quacks, etc..</p></div><p>So in Amercia it's (in the eye's of the law) better to say that someone has sex with their mother rather then lies about something? Hahaha.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me of the first episode of Penn &amp; Teller : Bullshit !
when Penn explains why they call people " motherfuckers " and " assholes " instead of liars , frauds , quacks , etc..So in Amercia it 's ( in the eye 's of the law ) better to say that someone has sex with their mother rather then lies about something ?
Hahaha .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me of the first episode of Penn &amp; Teller: Bullshit!
when Penn explains why they call people "motherfuckers" and "assholes" instead of liars, frauds, quacks, etc..So in Amercia it's (in the eye's of the law) better to say that someone has sex with their mother rather then lies about something?
Hahaha.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31257570</id>
	<title>Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron</title>
	<author>Ginger Unicorn</author>
	<datestamp>1265112480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your story is suspiciously vague. For all we know the police had a legitimate reason to disrupt whatever it was you were doing, and you're just bitterly rationalising it away as some kind of fascist act of suppression.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your story is suspiciously vague .
For all we know the police had a legitimate reason to disrupt whatever it was you were doing , and you 're just bitterly rationalising it away as some kind of fascist act of suppression .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your story is suspiciously vague.
For all we know the police had a legitimate reason to disrupt whatever it was you were doing, and you're just bitterly rationalising it away as some kind of fascist act of suppression.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31253296</id>
	<title>Re:What a joke..</title>
	<author>Z34107</author>
	<datestamp>1266931740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe the alternative-medicine stuff is BS, but I believe spinal adjustment can be helpful.  I had pinched nerves in my shoulders and wrists.  Tingling in my fingers eventually turned into a complete numbness of my hands - it was hard to move my fingers unless I was looking at them so I knew where they were.</p><p>After spine snapping, my posture is better, the tingling has been gone for over a year, and X-rays show that my spine no longer looks like a hang-man's gallows.</p><p>I think whatever other remedies get peddled about "toxins" are greedy snake-oil value-adds/upsells.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe the alternative-medicine stuff is BS , but I believe spinal adjustment can be helpful .
I had pinched nerves in my shoulders and wrists .
Tingling in my fingers eventually turned into a complete numbness of my hands - it was hard to move my fingers unless I was looking at them so I knew where they were.After spine snapping , my posture is better , the tingling has been gone for over a year , and X-rays show that my spine no longer looks like a hang-man 's gallows.I think whatever other remedies get peddled about " toxins " are greedy snake-oil value-adds/upsells .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe the alternative-medicine stuff is BS, but I believe spinal adjustment can be helpful.
I had pinched nerves in my shoulders and wrists.
Tingling in my fingers eventually turned into a complete numbness of my hands - it was hard to move my fingers unless I was looking at them so I knew where they were.After spine snapping, my posture is better, the tingling has been gone for over a year, and X-rays show that my spine no longer looks like a hang-man's gallows.I think whatever other remedies get peddled about "toxins" are greedy snake-oil value-adds/upsells.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250024</id>
	<title>What a joke..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266918360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>"I crack backs; I cure cancer!"
<br>"I crack backs; I cure deafness!"
<br> <br>Chiropractic is pseudo-0scientific bullshit. Along the lines of Homoeopathy, Acupuncture and "bad humours"<br> <br>Posted AC cuz I'm in the UK oddly enough.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I crack backs ; I cure cancer !
" " I crack backs ; I cure deafness !
" Chiropractic is pseudo-0scientific bullshit .
Along the lines of Homoeopathy , Acupuncture and " bad humours " Posted AC cuz I 'm in the UK oddly enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I crack backs; I cure cancer!
"
"I crack backs; I cure deafness!
"
 Chiropractic is pseudo-0scientific bullshit.
Along the lines of Homoeopathy, Acupuncture and "bad humours" Posted AC cuz I'm in the UK oddly enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31252546</id>
	<title>Re:What a joke..</title>
	<author>rahvin112</author>
	<datestamp>1266928260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think your above post admits that the placebo affect is a real documented effect. That the placebo effect can in fact remove pain completely. If such is true, is allowing scam artists to invoke the placebo effect in people and directly improve their lives a bad thing?</p><p>You might hate them and think their all scam artists but the reality is they dramatically improve some peoples lives, even if it's just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo that's the result of the placebo effect I can't condemn them. They are making some peoples lives better. And for that reason alone there is very good reason to allow them to keep practicing as long as they can help some people. I've met people that were on daily narcotic therapy for pain that were able to completely stop use after seeing a chiropractic practicer. And that right there justifies their continued existence even if it was entirely placebo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think your above post admits that the placebo affect is a real documented effect .
That the placebo effect can in fact remove pain completely .
If such is true , is allowing scam artists to invoke the placebo effect in people and directly improve their lives a bad thing ? You might hate them and think their all scam artists but the reality is they dramatically improve some peoples lives , even if it 's just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo that 's the result of the placebo effect I ca n't condemn them .
They are making some peoples lives better .
And for that reason alone there is very good reason to allow them to keep practicing as long as they can help some people .
I 've met people that were on daily narcotic therapy for pain that were able to completely stop use after seeing a chiropractic practicer .
And that right there justifies their continued existence even if it was entirely placebo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think your above post admits that the placebo affect is a real documented effect.
That the placebo effect can in fact remove pain completely.
If such is true, is allowing scam artists to invoke the placebo effect in people and directly improve their lives a bad thing?You might hate them and think their all scam artists but the reality is they dramatically improve some peoples lives, even if it's just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo that's the result of the placebo effect I can't condemn them.
They are making some peoples lives better.
And for that reason alone there is very good reason to allow them to keep practicing as long as they can help some people.
I've met people that were on daily narcotic therapy for pain that were able to completely stop use after seeing a chiropractic practicer.
And that right there justifies their continued existence even if it was entirely placebo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31257536</id>
	<title>Re:What a joke..</title>
	<author>magpie</author>
	<datestamp>1265112000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your safe as anyone else, your in Scotland, we have a different legal system (if you hadn't noticed) . We don't have libel or slander just defamation. Then again it appears you can sue anyone from London if it is possible anyone 'might' have heard what you wrote/said south of the border.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your safe as anyone else , your in Scotland , we have a different legal system ( if you had n't noticed ) .
We do n't have libel or slander just defamation .
Then again it appears you can sue anyone from London if it is possible anyone 'might ' have heard what you wrote/said south of the border .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your safe as anyone else, your in Scotland, we have a different legal system (if you hadn't noticed) .
We don't have libel or slander just defamation.
Then again it appears you can sue anyone from London if it is possible anyone 'might' have heard what you wrote/said south of the border.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31256706</id>
	<title>Re:What the Judge Said...</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1265101980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thecase is actually legally more interesting than <a href="http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2010/02/good-day-in-court.html" title="blogspot.com">a simple one of libel...</a> [blogspot.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thecase is actually legally more interesting than a simple one of libel... [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thecase is actually legally more interesting than a simple one of libel... [blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31256656</id>
	<title>Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265101380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, China's libel laws are less repressive than Britain's.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , China 's libel laws are less repressive than Britain 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, China's libel laws are less repressive than Britain's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251022</id>
	<title>"outdated"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266921960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate seeing things like "reform Britain's outdated libel laws". It makes it sound as if those laws were OK back then, which they weren't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate seeing things like " reform Britain 's outdated libel laws " .
It makes it sound as if those laws were OK back then , which they were n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate seeing things like "reform Britain's outdated libel laws".
It makes it sound as if those laws were OK back then, which they weren't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31259022</id>
	<title>Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265124780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not quite. An action over something that you said in that way would need to be for slander, and the person bringing the action would need to show defamation.</p><p>The UK problem is with libel (which is for written or broadcast things, including net stuff such as as<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.). The burden of proof is on the defendant - prove that what you said is true. You can't (or can't afford to)?  Whoops, you lose. The cost of defending an action can be astronomical and the cost of losing equally so. We've seen a significant number of instances of late of people and businesses abusing their financial muscle by using libel actions in the UK courts to try to stifle things that may well be true, and would certainly in (say) the US be covered by First Amendment rights. Sometimes neither party is even in the UK. Sure, only one or two people here may even have had a chance to see what was written, and any award is likely to be trivial - but if you're cited as a defendant, can you even afford to fight the action? No? Tough. They win, you lose. It's archaic law that desperately needs hauling kicking and screaming into the 21st century.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not quite .
An action over something that you said in that way would need to be for slander , and the person bringing the action would need to show defamation.The UK problem is with libel ( which is for written or broadcast things , including net stuff such as as /. ) .
The burden of proof is on the defendant - prove that what you said is true .
You ca n't ( or ca n't afford to ) ?
Whoops , you lose .
The cost of defending an action can be astronomical and the cost of losing equally so .
We 've seen a significant number of instances of late of people and businesses abusing their financial muscle by using libel actions in the UK courts to try to stifle things that may well be true , and would certainly in ( say ) the US be covered by First Amendment rights .
Sometimes neither party is even in the UK .
Sure , only one or two people here may even have had a chance to see what was written , and any award is likely to be trivial - but if you 're cited as a defendant , can you even afford to fight the action ?
No ? Tough .
They win , you lose .
It 's archaic law that desperately needs hauling kicking and screaming into the 21st century .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not quite.
An action over something that you said in that way would need to be for slander, and the person bringing the action would need to show defamation.The UK problem is with libel (which is for written or broadcast things, including net stuff such as as /.).
The burden of proof is on the defendant - prove that what you said is true.
You can't (or can't afford to)?
Whoops, you lose.
The cost of defending an action can be astronomical and the cost of losing equally so.
We've seen a significant number of instances of late of people and businesses abusing their financial muscle by using libel actions in the UK courts to try to stifle things that may well be true, and would certainly in (say) the US be covered by First Amendment rights.
Sometimes neither party is even in the UK.
Sure, only one or two people here may even have had a chance to see what was written, and any award is likely to be trivial - but if you're cited as a defendant, can you even afford to fight the action?
No? Tough.
They win, you lose.
It's archaic law that desperately needs hauling kicking and screaming into the 21st century.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31253770</id>
	<title>Re:What a joke..</title>
	<author>Doomdark</author>
	<datestamp>1266934140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>
I know several people who had surgeons tell them surgery was their only recourse, only to have a chiropractor fix them good as new.
</i>
<p>
I am not going to claim this could not be true, or purely placebo effect. But studies of similar things like intentionally bogus knee surgeries have shown that there can be medium-term placebo-like effect from many physical operations.
Knee surgery in question was explained in "Predictably Irrational" (great book): and end result proved that certain surgery that had high success rate could be replaced by simple bogus operation (in which patient was led to believe something was done, with anesthesia, fake wound etc), with similarly good success rate for reducing pain. Downside for both was that it only lasted for about 6 months.
</p><p>
One interesting thing was that this research was vehemently attacked by many credible (and sincere) medical professionals, who had done the surgery (with understanding that it would actually solve the problem). Even when presented with evidence. And these are individuals who should have as good a scientific view and understanding than anyone else -- if they would be capable of such denial, it's no wonder "lay-men" are prone to doing so too.
</p><p>
But perhaps the most interesting question here is this: by exposing that operation is useless can negate its effects. So: is it better to think that what is being done is effective, and get at least temporary (6 months is a LONG time to enjoy, for someone suffering from chronic pain) relief; or not to get even that relief?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know several people who had surgeons tell them surgery was their only recourse , only to have a chiropractor fix them good as new .
I am not going to claim this could not be true , or purely placebo effect .
But studies of similar things like intentionally bogus knee surgeries have shown that there can be medium-term placebo-like effect from many physical operations .
Knee surgery in question was explained in " Predictably Irrational " ( great book ) : and end result proved that certain surgery that had high success rate could be replaced by simple bogus operation ( in which patient was led to believe something was done , with anesthesia , fake wound etc ) , with similarly good success rate for reducing pain .
Downside for both was that it only lasted for about 6 months .
One interesting thing was that this research was vehemently attacked by many credible ( and sincere ) medical professionals , who had done the surgery ( with understanding that it would actually solve the problem ) .
Even when presented with evidence .
And these are individuals who should have as good a scientific view and understanding than anyone else -- if they would be capable of such denial , it 's no wonder " lay-men " are prone to doing so too .
But perhaps the most interesting question here is this : by exposing that operation is useless can negate its effects .
So : is it better to think that what is being done is effective , and get at least temporary ( 6 months is a LONG time to enjoy , for someone suffering from chronic pain ) relief ; or not to get even that relief ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I know several people who had surgeons tell them surgery was their only recourse, only to have a chiropractor fix them good as new.
I am not going to claim this could not be true, or purely placebo effect.
But studies of similar things like intentionally bogus knee surgeries have shown that there can be medium-term placebo-like effect from many physical operations.
Knee surgery in question was explained in "Predictably Irrational" (great book): and end result proved that certain surgery that had high success rate could be replaced by simple bogus operation (in which patient was led to believe something was done, with anesthesia, fake wound etc), with similarly good success rate for reducing pain.
Downside for both was that it only lasted for about 6 months.
One interesting thing was that this research was vehemently attacked by many credible (and sincere) medical professionals, who had done the surgery (with understanding that it would actually solve the problem).
Even when presented with evidence.
And these are individuals who should have as good a scientific view and understanding than anyone else -- if they would be capable of such denial, it's no wonder "lay-men" are prone to doing so too.
But perhaps the most interesting question here is this: by exposing that operation is useless can negate its effects.
So: is it better to think that what is being done is effective, and get at least temporary (6 months is a LONG time to enjoy, for someone suffering from chronic pain) relief; or not to get even that relief?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31256926</id>
	<title>Re:What a joke..</title>
	<author>c6gunner</author>
	<datestamp>1265104560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think your above post admits that the placebo affect is a real documented effect.</p></div><p>Of course.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>That the placebo effect can in fact remove pain completely.</p></div><p>No, the placebo effect doesn't remove anything.  The placebo effect is just an observation about the ability of the human body to affect itself.</p><p>As for the "remove pain <b>completely</b>" bit, that's also completely wrong.  I'm fairly certain that if you were to give burn victims a placebo instead of morphine, they'd notice a pretty big difference.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If such is true, is allowing scam artists to invoke the placebo effect in people and directly improve their lives a bad thing?</p></div><p>Yes.  You may as well ask me why it's wrong to sell cocaine to addicts when it clearly makes them feel so good.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think your above post admits that the placebo affect is a real documented effect.Of course.That the placebo effect can in fact remove pain completely.No , the placebo effect does n't remove anything .
The placebo effect is just an observation about the ability of the human body to affect itself.As for the " remove pain completely " bit , that 's also completely wrong .
I 'm fairly certain that if you were to give burn victims a placebo instead of morphine , they 'd notice a pretty big difference.If such is true , is allowing scam artists to invoke the placebo effect in people and directly improve their lives a bad thing ? Yes .
You may as well ask me why it 's wrong to sell cocaine to addicts when it clearly makes them feel so good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think your above post admits that the placebo affect is a real documented effect.Of course.That the placebo effect can in fact remove pain completely.No, the placebo effect doesn't remove anything.
The placebo effect is just an observation about the ability of the human body to affect itself.As for the "remove pain completely" bit, that's also completely wrong.
I'm fairly certain that if you were to give burn victims a placebo instead of morphine, they'd notice a pretty big difference.If such is true, is allowing scam artists to invoke the placebo effect in people and directly improve their lives a bad thing?Yes.
You may as well ask me why it's wrong to sell cocaine to addicts when it clearly makes them feel so good.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31252546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250110</id>
	<title>Re:A question for the limeys:</title>
	<author>artg</author>
	<datestamp>1266918720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. The libel stuff is fairly new - probably only the last 5 years or so. We always used to consider the USA the place for that, but it seems to have moved here recently.

2. The establishment understands the Streisand effect and ignores the popular press. But now the lawyers rather than the clients are creating the market. They don't care whether they actually suppress the 'libel, they just want to get paid. So they lead stupid people to try. Doubtless they'll get over it eventually.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
The libel stuff is fairly new - probably only the last 5 years or so .
We always used to consider the USA the place for that , but it seems to have moved here recently .
2. The establishment understands the Streisand effect and ignores the popular press .
But now the lawyers rather than the clients are creating the market .
They do n't care whether they actually suppress the 'libel , they just want to get paid .
So they lead stupid people to try .
Doubtless they 'll get over it eventually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
The libel stuff is fairly new - probably only the last 5 years or so.
We always used to consider the USA the place for that, but it seems to have moved here recently.
2. The establishment understands the Streisand effect and ignores the popular press.
But now the lawyers rather than the clients are creating the market.
They don't care whether they actually suppress the 'libel, they just want to get paid.
So they lead stupid people to try.
Doubtless they'll get over it eventually.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31257496</id>
	<title>Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1265111400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In China, there is no opposition party. In China you get arrested and tortured if you commemorate Tien Anmen massacres. You can do such things in UK and US. You can do them loud, you can convince other people. You take the example of noise disturbance as an example of how our freedom of speech is impaired, I do not believe it is fair. There are legal means of rallying people to a controversial views. In UK you have public demonstrators of extreme islamism or (IIRC) nazism happening regularly. I guess you have the regular communist rally also and of course opposition demonstrations. <br> <br>
In China, not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In China , there is no opposition party .
In China you get arrested and tortured if you commemorate Tien Anmen massacres .
You can do such things in UK and US .
You can do them loud , you can convince other people .
You take the example of noise disturbance as an example of how our freedom of speech is impaired , I do not believe it is fair .
There are legal means of rallying people to a controversial views .
In UK you have public demonstrators of extreme islamism or ( IIRC ) nazism happening regularly .
I guess you have the regular communist rally also and of course opposition demonstrations .
In China , not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In China, there is no opposition party.
In China you get arrested and tortured if you commemorate Tien Anmen massacres.
You can do such things in UK and US.
You can do them loud, you can convince other people.
You take the example of noise disturbance as an example of how our freedom of speech is impaired, I do not believe it is fair.
There are legal means of rallying people to a controversial views.
In UK you have public demonstrators of extreme islamism or (IIRC) nazism happening regularly.
I guess you have the regular communist rally also and of course opposition demonstrations.
In China, not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251006</id>
	<title>Re:More Importantly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266921960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fermat's last theorem wasn't a very good book.  I remember it going on and on repeating itself, but, crucially, not getting far close to actually explaining, to an intelligent laymen, exactly what the problem was and/or how clever an answer would be.  It was like a good magazine article stretched into hundreds of pages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fermat 's last theorem was n't a very good book .
I remember it going on and on repeating itself , but , crucially , not getting far close to actually explaining , to an intelligent laymen , exactly what the problem was and/or how clever an answer would be .
It was like a good magazine article stretched into hundreds of pages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fermat's last theorem wasn't a very good book.
I remember it going on and on repeating itself, but, crucially, not getting far close to actually explaining, to an intelligent laymen, exactly what the problem was and/or how clever an answer would be.
It was like a good magazine article stretched into hundreds of pages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31256264</id>
	<title>Not Fair!!</title>
	<author>radcliffeth</author>
	<datestamp>1266954480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is not fair. Everybody has Britain in a democratic country and everybody should have freedom of speech.
<a href="http://ezinearticles.com/?Best-Anti-Eye-Wrinkle-Cream---Choose-With-the-Help-of-My-Personal-Experience&amp;id=3789968" title="ezinearticles.com" rel="nofollow">http://ezinearticles.com/?Best-Anti-Eye-Wrinkle-Cream---Choose-With-the-Help-of-My-Personal-Experience&amp;id=3789968</a> [ezinearticles.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not fair .
Everybody has Britain in a democratic country and everybody should have freedom of speech .
http : //ezinearticles.com/ ? Best-Anti-Eye-Wrinkle-Cream---Choose-With-the-Help-of-My-Personal-Experience&amp;id = 3789968 [ ezinearticles.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not fair.
Everybody has Britain in a democratic country and everybody should have freedom of speech.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Best-Anti-Eye-Wrinkle-Cream---Choose-With-the-Help-of-My-Personal-Experience&amp;id=3789968 [ezinearticles.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31256692</id>
	<title>Re:What a joke..</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1265101740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't hold your breath, nobody cares about suing slashdotters.  Gordon Brown eats babies and homoeopaths are liars, but they never sue me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't hold your breath , nobody cares about suing slashdotters .
Gordon Brown eats babies and homoeopaths are liars , but they never sue me : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't hold your breath, nobody cares about suing slashdotters.
Gordon Brown eats babies and homoeopaths are liars, but they never sue me :(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31253372</id>
	<title>Re:What a joke..</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1266932100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actual colic is unlikely to be cured by chiropracty but I could see it helping with some general digestive problems that might be colloquially called colic.</p><p>On the other side of the coin, a number of back pain treatments used by "conventional medicine" are poorly supported by evidence.</p><p>But agreed, chiropracty as a cure for cancer is unlikely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actual colic is unlikely to be cured by chiropracty but I could see it helping with some general digestive problems that might be colloquially called colic.On the other side of the coin , a number of back pain treatments used by " conventional medicine " are poorly supported by evidence.But agreed , chiropracty as a cure for cancer is unlikely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actual colic is unlikely to be cured by chiropracty but I could see it helping with some general digestive problems that might be colloquially called colic.On the other side of the coin, a number of back pain treatments used by "conventional medicine" are poorly supported by evidence.But agreed, chiropracty as a cure for cancer is unlikely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251908</id>
	<title>give british law a chance</title>
	<author>Cederic</author>
	<datestamp>1266925140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Singh loses this then that would be a surprise, but it would also be based on the current interpretation and application of the law. He wont be hung out to dry (Eady's bewildering decision notwithstanding).</p><p>It's been known in cases like this in the past for the award to the plaintiffs to be nominal - a couple of pennies. I would hope that if he does lose, the judges take exactly that approach.</p><p>Frankly the BCA are acting like a bunch of charlatan's trying to abuse the law to silence legitimate protest and I hope they lose and get hit with punitive costs as a result.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Singh loses this then that would be a surprise , but it would also be based on the current interpretation and application of the law .
He wont be hung out to dry ( Eady 's bewildering decision notwithstanding ) .It 's been known in cases like this in the past for the award to the plaintiffs to be nominal - a couple of pennies .
I would hope that if he does lose , the judges take exactly that approach.Frankly the BCA are acting like a bunch of charlatan 's trying to abuse the law to silence legitimate protest and I hope they lose and get hit with punitive costs as a result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Singh loses this then that would be a surprise, but it would also be based on the current interpretation and application of the law.
He wont be hung out to dry (Eady's bewildering decision notwithstanding).It's been known in cases like this in the past for the award to the plaintiffs to be nominal - a couple of pennies.
I would hope that if he does lose, the judges take exactly that approach.Frankly the BCA are acting like a bunch of charlatan's trying to abuse the law to silence legitimate protest and I hope they lose and get hit with punitive costs as a result.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250540</id>
	<title>Re:Two And A Half Men</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266920460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about the UK, but I suspect that there as well as here comedy is not considered libelous, or the guys from Monty Python would have had the shit sued out of them. For instance, the "mad doctor" sketch - "Now they want to <b>socialize medicine!</b>"</p><p>Or the brain surgeon sketch.</p><p>"My brain hurts!"</p><p>"Well, it will have to come out then."<br>Followed later in the sketch with the surgeon saying "my brain hurts, too."</p><p>And what about the archetect and the Masons? If comedy were considered libel in Britain, those giuys would have been in deep poodoo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about the UK , but I suspect that there as well as here comedy is not considered libelous , or the guys from Monty Python would have had the shit sued out of them .
For instance , the " mad doctor " sketch - " Now they want to socialize medicine !
" Or the brain surgeon sketch .
" My brain hurts !
" " Well , it will have to come out then .
" Followed later in the sketch with the surgeon saying " my brain hurts , too .
" And what about the archetect and the Masons ?
If comedy were considered libel in Britain , those giuys would have been in deep poodoo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about the UK, but I suspect that there as well as here comedy is not considered libelous, or the guys from Monty Python would have had the shit sued out of them.
For instance, the "mad doctor" sketch - "Now they want to socialize medicine!
"Or the brain surgeon sketch.
"My brain hurts!
""Well, it will have to come out then.
"Followed later in the sketch with the surgeon saying "my brain hurts, too.
"And what about the archetect and the Masons?
If comedy were considered libel in Britain, those giuys would have been in deep poodoo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250858</id>
	<title>Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266921420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IANAL and certainly know nothing of this British Libel law, so I'll go ahead and ask:<br>Is the submitter now at risk of a libel suit from the British Government for so egregiously insulting the nation's legal system and free speech rights?  Could the submitter be liable in a libel suit for falsely comparing Britain to China in regards to Human Rights?<br> <br>If not, then clearly he is mistaken in his assessment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL and certainly know nothing of this British Libel law , so I 'll go ahead and ask : Is the submitter now at risk of a libel suit from the British Government for so egregiously insulting the nation 's legal system and free speech rights ?
Could the submitter be liable in a libel suit for falsely comparing Britain to China in regards to Human Rights ?
If not , then clearly he is mistaken in his assessment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL and certainly know nothing of this British Libel law, so I'll go ahead and ask:Is the submitter now at risk of a libel suit from the British Government for so egregiously insulting the nation's legal system and free speech rights?
Could the submitter be liable in a libel suit for falsely comparing Britain to China in regards to Human Rights?
If not, then clearly he is mistaken in his assessment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250288</id>
	<title>Re:What a joke..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266919380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suppose that depends on what your Chiropractor is claiming to fix.</p><p>For example, my girlfriend visits a chiropractor because one of her spinal discs pinches a nerve in her upper back and that causes backpain and headaches.</p><p>She says it helps - and I take her word for it that someone cracking the back is helping the issues aligned with her spine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose that depends on what your Chiropractor is claiming to fix.For example , my girlfriend visits a chiropractor because one of her spinal discs pinches a nerve in her upper back and that causes backpain and headaches.She says it helps - and I take her word for it that someone cracking the back is helping the issues aligned with her spine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose that depends on what your Chiropractor is claiming to fix.For example, my girlfriend visits a chiropractor because one of her spinal discs pinches a nerve in her upper back and that causes backpain and headaches.She says it helps - and I take her word for it that someone cracking the back is helping the issues aligned with her spine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31253264</id>
	<title>Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266931560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would have been oh so much more effective had the author known how to properly use "affect" instead of effect in the above, as appropriate.  Teleprompter broken or written by fools?</p><p>Damn, now I'm going to loose mod points<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;~)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would have been oh so much more effective had the author known how to properly use " affect " instead of effect in the above , as appropriate .
Teleprompter broken or written by fools ? Damn , now I 'm going to loose mod points ; ~ )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would have been oh so much more effective had the author known how to properly use "affect" instead of effect in the above, as appropriate.
Teleprompter broken or written by fools?Damn, now I'm going to loose mod points ;~)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31255862</id>
	<title>Re:What a joke..</title>
	<author>Max Littlemore</author>
	<datestamp>1266949920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>All true - and also helped by the fact that chronic pain is one area where the placebo effect is particularly powerful.</p></div></blockquote><p>Sooooo, let's see... Chronic back pain and headaches...</p><p>So chiropractic work manipulates the spine to, among other things, reduce pinching on nerves. So what do you suggest for chronic back pain then? Do you think it more sciency to, for example, prescribe anti-inflamatories that cause liver damage but reduce swelling of areas damaged by pinching along the spine allowing temporary improvement and hoping the spine corrects itself? You can always get a repeat....</p><p>Hmmmm. Or do we perhaps MOVE THE FUCKING SPINE BACK THE WAY IT SHOULD BE? But no, that's just a placebo. Like how if my car's stearing is out of alignment, getting a wheel alignment is a placebo. No, go with the drugs because then you can go back and get some other drug to deal with the liver problems and feel safe knowing you are in the hands of a good doctor.</p><p>Seriously, claiming a cure for cancer is pretty dangerous and stupid, but claiming that modern our pharmacy and butcher based medicine is the only way of dealing with ahealth problems is just as dangerous and stupid. Chiropractic treatment is effective for a few things where doctors are far worse than useless and a good doctor knows this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All true - and also helped by the fact that chronic pain is one area where the placebo effect is particularly powerful.Sooooo , let 's see... Chronic back pain and headaches...So chiropractic work manipulates the spine to , among other things , reduce pinching on nerves .
So what do you suggest for chronic back pain then ?
Do you think it more sciency to , for example , prescribe anti-inflamatories that cause liver damage but reduce swelling of areas damaged by pinching along the spine allowing temporary improvement and hoping the spine corrects itself ?
You can always get a repeat....Hmmmm .
Or do we perhaps MOVE THE FUCKING SPINE BACK THE WAY IT SHOULD BE ?
But no , that 's just a placebo .
Like how if my car 's stearing is out of alignment , getting a wheel alignment is a placebo .
No , go with the drugs because then you can go back and get some other drug to deal with the liver problems and feel safe knowing you are in the hands of a good doctor.Seriously , claiming a cure for cancer is pretty dangerous and stupid , but claiming that modern our pharmacy and butcher based medicine is the only way of dealing with ahealth problems is just as dangerous and stupid .
Chiropractic treatment is effective for a few things where doctors are far worse than useless and a good doctor knows this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All true - and also helped by the fact that chronic pain is one area where the placebo effect is particularly powerful.Sooooo, let's see... Chronic back pain and headaches...So chiropractic work manipulates the spine to, among other things, reduce pinching on nerves.
So what do you suggest for chronic back pain then?
Do you think it more sciency to, for example, prescribe anti-inflamatories that cause liver damage but reduce swelling of areas damaged by pinching along the spine allowing temporary improvement and hoping the spine corrects itself?
You can always get a repeat....Hmmmm.
Or do we perhaps MOVE THE FUCKING SPINE BACK THE WAY IT SHOULD BE?
But no, that's just a placebo.
Like how if my car's stearing is out of alignment, getting a wheel alignment is a placebo.
No, go with the drugs because then you can go back and get some other drug to deal with the liver problems and feel safe knowing you are in the hands of a good doctor.Seriously, claiming a cure for cancer is pretty dangerous and stupid, but claiming that modern our pharmacy and butcher based medicine is the only way of dealing with ahealth problems is just as dangerous and stupid.
Chiropractic treatment is effective for a few things where doctors are far worse than useless and a good doctor knows this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31252144</id>
	<title>Welcome to Britain, Now shut up!</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1266926340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Britain seems like it could do well to adopt the U.S. Bill of rights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Britain seems like it could do well to adopt the U.S. Bill of rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Britain seems like it could do well to adopt the U.S. Bill of rights.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250146</id>
	<title>Re:A question for the limeys:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266918840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps there is a bit of Darwinism here.</p><p>The journalists that survive end up becoming accustomed to getting their ducks in a row before going after someone. So by being forced to do their homework properly, they are more confident about their claims and more willing to press them.</p><p>It sounds like Singh didn't do that. It sounds like he was just talking trash and got called out for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps there is a bit of Darwinism here.The journalists that survive end up becoming accustomed to getting their ducks in a row before going after someone .
So by being forced to do their homework properly , they are more confident about their claims and more willing to press them.It sounds like Singh did n't do that .
It sounds like he was just talking trash and got called out for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps there is a bit of Darwinism here.The journalists that survive end up becoming accustomed to getting their ducks in a row before going after someone.
So by being forced to do their homework properly, they are more confident about their claims and more willing to press them.It sounds like Singh didn't do that.
It sounds like he was just talking trash and got called out for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250638</id>
	<title>Re:Humbug!</title>
	<author>ndogg</author>
	<datestamp>1266920760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And in this case, Penn calls these guys "baby twisting motherfuckers."</p><p>I don't think I could have come up with a better phrase than that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And in this case , Penn calls these guys " baby twisting motherfuckers .
" I do n't think I could have come up with a better phrase than that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And in this case, Penn calls these guys "baby twisting motherfuckers.
"I don't think I could have come up with a better phrase than that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249872</id>
	<title>His cryptography book is a good read</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266917820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So I so we let him off!</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I so we let him off !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I so we let him off!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31252258</id>
	<title>Legal Context</title>
	<author>Alistair Hutton</author>
	<datestamp>1266926880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just to give you some idea of what is going on.  Singh was found guilty of libel by a Judge know as Justic Eady, he is the Eastern Texas District Court of Libel Judges.  Ridiculous libel decision after ridiculous libel decision has been made by him, well beyond the bounds of Britain's already incredibly strict laws.
<p>
Britain's senior judges have been begging parliament for reform in the libel and defamation laws due to their stupidity.  The three judge appeal panel has Britian's two most senior judes on it, they have specifically requested this case for two reason's
<br>
1) To smack down Eady and deliver a sternly worded "No" to him while clipping his nose with a rolled up newspaper.
<br>
2) A spot of judicial activism because the politicians are dragging their feet something rotten</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just to give you some idea of what is going on .
Singh was found guilty of libel by a Judge know as Justic Eady , he is the Eastern Texas District Court of Libel Judges .
Ridiculous libel decision after ridiculous libel decision has been made by him , well beyond the bounds of Britain 's already incredibly strict laws .
Britain 's senior judges have been begging parliament for reform in the libel and defamation laws due to their stupidity .
The three judge appeal panel has Britian 's two most senior judes on it , they have specifically requested this case for two reason 's 1 ) To smack down Eady and deliver a sternly worded " No " to him while clipping his nose with a rolled up newspaper .
2 ) A spot of judicial activism because the politicians are dragging their feet something rotten</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just to give you some idea of what is going on.
Singh was found guilty of libel by a Judge know as Justic Eady, he is the Eastern Texas District Court of Libel Judges.
Ridiculous libel decision after ridiculous libel decision has been made by him, well beyond the bounds of Britain's already incredibly strict laws.
Britain's senior judges have been begging parliament for reform in the libel and defamation laws due to their stupidity.
The three judge appeal panel has Britian's two most senior judes on it, they have specifically requested this case for two reason's

1) To smack down Eady and deliver a sternly worded "No" to him while clipping his nose with a rolled up newspaper.
2) A spot of judicial activism because the politicians are dragging their feet something rotten</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31252156</id>
	<title>Re:What a joke..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266926400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think once again it depends on what the practitioners are claiming. It's fairly obviously the case that acupuncture can have some effects. The notion that acting on the nerves in one part of the body can affect nerves in another I know to be true from experience since there are some parts on my body where if I scratch I can feel it in other parts. Whether that's a universal thing or just a quirk belonging specifically to me I don't know. Anyway, if an acupuncturist claims to be able to relieve pain, I can buy it. If they claim to be able to stimulate the immune system.... maybe. If they claim to be able to cure cancer or AIDS, then I think that they're going to need some extraordinary proof to back their claims.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think once again it depends on what the practitioners are claiming .
It 's fairly obviously the case that acupuncture can have some effects .
The notion that acting on the nerves in one part of the body can affect nerves in another I know to be true from experience since there are some parts on my body where if I scratch I can feel it in other parts .
Whether that 's a universal thing or just a quirk belonging specifically to me I do n't know .
Anyway , if an acupuncturist claims to be able to relieve pain , I can buy it .
If they claim to be able to stimulate the immune system.... maybe. If they claim to be able to cure cancer or AIDS , then I think that they 're going to need some extraordinary proof to back their claims .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think once again it depends on what the practitioners are claiming.
It's fairly obviously the case that acupuncture can have some effects.
The notion that acting on the nerves in one part of the body can affect nerves in another I know to be true from experience since there are some parts on my body where if I scratch I can feel it in other parts.
Whether that's a universal thing or just a quirk belonging specifically to me I don't know.
Anyway, if an acupuncturist claims to be able to relieve pain, I can buy it.
If they claim to be able to stimulate the immune system.... maybe. If they claim to be able to cure cancer or AIDS, then I think that they're going to need some extraordinary proof to back their claims.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31255188</id>
	<title>Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron</title>
	<author>Flere Imsaho</author>
	<datestamp>1266943800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251004</id>
	<title>bob</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266921900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't Uk libel law it's English and welsh libel law Scotland and Northern Ireland have a different legal system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't Uk libel law it 's English and welsh libel law Scotland and Northern Ireland have a different legal system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't Uk libel law it's English and welsh libel law Scotland and Northern Ireland have a different legal system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31257196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31252178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31257240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31252862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31257536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31252276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31252590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31252156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31257570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31256724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31258128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31257496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31253596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31253264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31253296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31257824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31306544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31256692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31255862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31253344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31279698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31255188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31260636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31255934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31252040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31256706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31256656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31253770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31256926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31252546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31259022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31253372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31252802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31256828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1954227_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31265358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1954227.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31256724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1954227.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1954227.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31257240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250006
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31253596
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31256656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251114
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31253264
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31257570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31256828
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31257496
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31306544
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31259022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250346
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31255188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31258128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250092
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250830
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1954227.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31252258
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1954227.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31257506
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1954227.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250554
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31256706
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31257196
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31260636
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251168
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251162
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31253344
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1954227.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251184
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1954227.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250220
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251122
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250580
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31252040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1954227.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249872
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1954227.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250540
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1954227.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1954227.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31253296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250488
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31256692
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31257536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250288
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31252802
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251078
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31255862
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31265358
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31252590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250478
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251500
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31252546
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31256926
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31257824
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31253770
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31252156
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31253372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250386
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1954227.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251006
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31252276
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31252862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31252178
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1954227.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31279698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249994
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31255934
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1954227.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31252144
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1954227.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31251386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1954227.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31249922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1954227.31250824
</commentlist>
</conversation>
