<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_25_201256</id>
	<title>Leak Shows US Lead Opponent of ACTA Transparency</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1267086660000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Throughout the debate over ACTA transparency, the secret copyright
treaty, many countries have taken public positions that they support
release of the actual text, but that other countries do not.
Since full transparency requires consensus of all the ACTA partners,
the text simply can't be released until everyone is in agreement.
A new leak
from the Netherlands fingers who the <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4819/125/">chief opponents of transparency</a>
are: the United States, South Korea, Singapore, and Denmark lead the
way, with Belgium, Germany, and Portugal not far behind as problem
countries."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Throughout the debate over ACTA transparency , the secret copyright treaty , many countries have taken public positions that they support release of the actual text , but that other countries do not .
Since full transparency requires consensus of all the ACTA partners , the text simply ca n't be released until everyone is in agreement .
A new leak from the Netherlands fingers who the chief opponents of transparency are : the United States , South Korea , Singapore , and Denmark lead the way , with Belgium , Germany , and Portugal not far behind as problem countries .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Throughout the debate over ACTA transparency, the secret copyright
treaty, many countries have taken public positions that they support
release of the actual text, but that other countries do not.
Since full transparency requires consensus of all the ACTA partners,
the text simply can't be released until everyone is in agreement.
A new leak
from the Netherlands fingers who the chief opponents of transparency
are: the United States, South Korea, Singapore, and Denmark lead the
way, with Belgium, Germany, and Portugal not far behind as problem
countries.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31278608</id>
	<title>Transparency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267096260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know, I seem to recall hearing that word a lot the past 2 years, but now?  Eh, not so much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , I seem to recall hearing that word a lot the past 2 years , but now ?
Eh , not so much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, I seem to recall hearing that word a lot the past 2 years, but now?
Eh, not so much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277988</id>
	<title>Re:Just who did we elect to do this?</title>
	<author>moxley</author>
	<datestamp>1267093920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean the same senate that has bought and paid for a significant portion of these congresspeople?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean the same senate that has bought and paid for a significant portion of these congresspeople ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean the same senate that has bought and paid for a significant portion of these congresspeople?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277294</id>
	<title>How do we folllow the law?</title>
	<author>Jeng</author>
	<datestamp>1267090860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How are we suppose to follow a law if we do not know what it is?</p><p>Or am I missing something here?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How are we suppose to follow a law if we do not know what it is ? Or am I missing something here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How are we suppose to follow a law if we do not know what it is?Or am I missing something here?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277842</id>
	<title>IT IS NOT A TREATY</title>
	<author>langelgjm</author>
	<datestamp>1267093260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This will be debated.</p></div><p>No, it won't.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The treaty will be rejected if it's as bad as we're fearing.</p></div><p>No, it won't.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>What are we worried about?</p></div><p>We're worried about the fact that <b>ACTA is not a treaty but rather an executive agreement</b>, inter alia. This means that no Senate approval or Congressional oversight of any kind is required. The only limits are that the agreement has to be within the bounds of current U.S. law. Of course, coloring within the lines of judge-made case-law is hard to do, it closes off policy options for the future, and the primary concern many people have is the extent to which ACTA will be forcing US IP policy onto other countries (all the while leaving out the good parts of our law, like fair use).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This will be debated.No , it wo n't.The treaty will be rejected if it 's as bad as we 're fearing.No , it wo n't.What are we worried about ? We 're worried about the fact that ACTA is not a treaty but rather an executive agreement , inter alia .
This means that no Senate approval or Congressional oversight of any kind is required .
The only limits are that the agreement has to be within the bounds of current U.S. law. Of course , coloring within the lines of judge-made case-law is hard to do , it closes off policy options for the future , and the primary concern many people have is the extent to which ACTA will be forcing US IP policy onto other countries ( all the while leaving out the good parts of our law , like fair use ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will be debated.No, it won't.The treaty will be rejected if it's as bad as we're fearing.No, it won't.What are we worried about?We're worried about the fact that ACTA is not a treaty but rather an executive agreement, inter alia.
This means that no Senate approval or Congressional oversight of any kind is required.
The only limits are that the agreement has to be within the bounds of current U.S. law. Of course, coloring within the lines of judge-made case-law is hard to do, it closes off policy options for the future, and the primary concern many people have is the extent to which ACTA will be forcing US IP policy onto other countries (all the while leaving out the good parts of our law, like fair use).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277524</id>
	<title>Re:apt quote</title>
	<author>killmenow</author>
	<datestamp>1267091820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Shut up, honkey!" - George Jefferson</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Shut up , honkey !
" - George Jefferson</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Shut up, honkey!
" - George Jefferson</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31280070</id>
	<title>Re:Just who did we elect to do this?</title>
	<author>Warhawke</author>
	<datestamp>1267104960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>For clarification, the Supreme Court ruling did not so much grant any new rights to corporations as it did close a loophole that allowed Big Content, but not other businesses, to publish advertisements by means of owning their own media outlets.  While I'm with most to jump on the anti-corporate bandwagon, many a slashdotter will agree that more free speech for all is universally better than less.  When we start taking free speech away from those we don't want having it, we're really no better than the corporations who do the exact same thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For clarification , the Supreme Court ruling did not so much grant any new rights to corporations as it did close a loophole that allowed Big Content , but not other businesses , to publish advertisements by means of owning their own media outlets .
While I 'm with most to jump on the anti-corporate bandwagon , many a slashdotter will agree that more free speech for all is universally better than less .
When we start taking free speech away from those we do n't want having it , we 're really no better than the corporations who do the exact same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For clarification, the Supreme Court ruling did not so much grant any new rights to corporations as it did close a loophole that allowed Big Content, but not other businesses, to publish advertisements by means of owning their own media outlets.
While I'm with most to jump on the anti-corporate bandwagon, many a slashdotter will agree that more free speech for all is universally better than less.
When we start taking free speech away from those we don't want having it, we're really no better than the corporations who do the exact same thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277374</id>
	<title>Poorly written summary</title>
	<author>Anonymusing</author>
	<datestamp>1267091160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, just to be clear... the article says "the U.S. has <b>remained silent on the issue</b>, as it remains unconvinced of the need for full disclosure.  In doing so, it would appear that the U.S. is perhaps the biggest problem since a clear position of support might be enough to persuade the remaining outliers." (emphasis added)
</p><p>In other words, we haven't said anything. I wish we'd said something in support of transparency, but it is not fair to lump the U.S. in with countries who are actively opposing transparency.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , just to be clear... the article says " the U.S. has remained silent on the issue , as it remains unconvinced of the need for full disclosure .
In doing so , it would appear that the U.S. is perhaps the biggest problem since a clear position of support might be enough to persuade the remaining outliers .
" ( emphasis added ) In other words , we have n't said anything .
I wish we 'd said something in support of transparency , but it is not fair to lump the U.S. in with countries who are actively opposing transparency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, just to be clear... the article says "the U.S. has remained silent on the issue, as it remains unconvinced of the need for full disclosure.
In doing so, it would appear that the U.S. is perhaps the biggest problem since a clear position of support might be enough to persuade the remaining outliers.
" (emphasis added)
In other words, we haven't said anything.
I wish we'd said something in support of transparency, but it is not fair to lump the U.S. in with countries who are actively opposing transparency.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277954</id>
	<title>Re:We will have discussions about this on CSPAN2!</title>
	<author>yacc143</author>
	<datestamp>1267093740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>lol, the naivity.</p><p>Just means that the content mafia has to go to a different shop to buy the 9 democrats?</p><p>No, I guess that would be customer-unfriedly (or shall I say lobbyist unfriendly), guess it's a one-stop shopping run.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>lol , the naivity.Just means that the content mafia has to go to a different shop to buy the 9 democrats ? No , I guess that would be customer-unfriedly ( or shall I say lobbyist unfriendly ) , guess it 's a one-stop shopping run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lol, the naivity.Just means that the content mafia has to go to a different shop to buy the 9 democrats?No, I guess that would be customer-unfriedly (or shall I say lobbyist unfriendly), guess it's a one-stop shopping run.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277454</id>
	<title>Re:How do we folllow the law?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267091460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's still under negotiation.  It's less a question of not telling you the law, and more a question about whether they want the general populace to know the terms of the agreement \_while\_ they're working on it.</p><p>(i.e. whether they tell you before or after it's too late to complain about the laws they'll have to pass to support the treaties).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's still under negotiation .
It 's less a question of not telling you the law , and more a question about whether they want the general populace to know the terms of the agreement \ _while \ _ they 're working on it. ( i.e .
whether they tell you before or after it 's too late to complain about the laws they 'll have to pass to support the treaties ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's still under negotiation.
It's less a question of not telling you the law, and more a question about whether they want the general populace to know the terms of the agreement \_while\_ they're working on it.(i.e.
whether they tell you before or after it's too late to complain about the laws they'll have to pass to support the treaties).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31278072</id>
	<title>News to me</title>
	<author>Krakadoom</author>
	<datestamp>1267094220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not to rain on the Dutch parade, but maybe they dont know entirely what they're talking about? Could it just be finger pointing?
<br> <br>
I know two things for sure though. First, I live in one of the countries listed as "opposed" to transparency, yet our administration is clearly for more transparency in the process. Second, I've read the draft text start to finish - it's not all that secret, and honestly not all that interesting either. I'm surprised it's not on wikileaks yet tbh.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to rain on the Dutch parade , but maybe they dont know entirely what they 're talking about ?
Could it just be finger pointing ?
I know two things for sure though .
First , I live in one of the countries listed as " opposed " to transparency , yet our administration is clearly for more transparency in the process .
Second , I 've read the draft text start to finish - it 's not all that secret , and honestly not all that interesting either .
I 'm surprised it 's not on wikileaks yet tbh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to rain on the Dutch parade, but maybe they dont know entirely what they're talking about?
Could it just be finger pointing?
I know two things for sure though.
First, I live in one of the countries listed as "opposed" to transparency, yet our administration is clearly for more transparency in the process.
Second, I've read the draft text start to finish - it's not all that secret, and honestly not all that interesting either.
I'm surprised it's not on wikileaks yet tbh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31278466</id>
	<title>Since when does transparency...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267095660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... , to the very people who elected them, require consensus?  Shouldn't it be opacity that requires unanimous consensus?</p><p>Seriously, people, how much more clue do you need that "reform" isn't going to cut it?  Only another "R" word is going to put an end to this.  If you're not firing up the furnace and making ready to beat your plowshares into swords, you're not doing enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... , to the very people who elected them , require consensus ?
Should n't it be opacity that requires unanimous consensus ? Seriously , people , how much more clue do you need that " reform " is n't going to cut it ?
Only another " R " word is going to put an end to this .
If you 're not firing up the furnace and making ready to beat your plowshares into swords , you 're not doing enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... , to the very people who elected them, require consensus?
Shouldn't it be opacity that requires unanimous consensus?Seriously, people, how much more clue do you need that "reform" isn't going to cut it?
Only another "R" word is going to put an end to this.
If you're not firing up the furnace and making ready to beat your plowshares into swords, you're not doing enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31278384</id>
	<title>Re:Poorly written summary</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1267095360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, the article says that, but what does that mean?</p><p>I have a document in my hand.  I have 1 million people writing me letters asking me to release it.  I refuse.  How is that being silent on the issue?  They are actively refusing to release it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , the article says that , but what does that mean ? I have a document in my hand .
I have 1 million people writing me letters asking me to release it .
I refuse .
How is that being silent on the issue ?
They are actively refusing to release it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, the article says that, but what does that mean?I have a document in my hand.
I have 1 million people writing me letters asking me to release it.
I refuse.
How is that being silent on the issue?
They are actively refusing to release it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277234</id>
	<title>I must say</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1267090560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am shocked. Just shocked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am shocked .
Just shocked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am shocked.
Just shocked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277400</id>
	<title>Germany</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267091280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a resident of one of the mentioned problem countries, I think it might be helpful to point towards an organization to rally behind to oppose the secrecy:</p><p> <a href="http://action.ffii.org/acta" title="ffii.org" rel="nofollow">ACTA workgroup</a> [ffii.org] of the <a href="http://ffii.org/" title="ffii.org" rel="nofollow">Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure e.V.</a> [ffii.org] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a resident of one of the mentioned problem countries , I think it might be helpful to point towards an organization to rally behind to oppose the secrecy : ACTA workgroup [ ffii.org ] of the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure e.V .
[ ffii.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a resident of one of the mentioned problem countries, I think it might be helpful to point towards an organization to rally behind to oppose the secrecy: ACTA workgroup [ffii.org] of the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure e.V.
[ffii.org] </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31279116</id>
	<title>Re:We will have discussions about this on CSPAN2!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267098480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What are we worried about?</p></div></blockquote><p>
The treaty passing with 100 yea votes and 0 nay votes.  Or passing 59 to 41.  The two parties you just mentioned happen to be the bad guys, and the one with 59 senators happens to be the worst of the two (on this issue).
</p><p>
Remember that DMCA has <em>not</em> been repealed.  The current American government is pretty hostile.
</p><blockquote><div><p>This will be debated</p></div></blockquote><p>
Nobody has put forth a good reason why it can't be debated <em>now</em>, before it even gets to the Senate.  Why wait?  The treaty and the existing law (DMCA) that it appears to make worse instead of better, ought to be getting talked about in the bars, TV shows, newspapers, etc right now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What are we worried about ?
The treaty passing with 100 yea votes and 0 nay votes .
Or passing 59 to 41 .
The two parties you just mentioned happen to be the bad guys , and the one with 59 senators happens to be the worst of the two ( on this issue ) .
Remember that DMCA has not been repealed .
The current American government is pretty hostile .
This will be debated Nobody has put forth a good reason why it ca n't be debated now , before it even gets to the Senate .
Why wait ?
The treaty and the existing law ( DMCA ) that it appears to make worse instead of better , ought to be getting talked about in the bars , TV shows , newspapers , etc right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are we worried about?
The treaty passing with 100 yea votes and 0 nay votes.
Or passing 59 to 41.
The two parties you just mentioned happen to be the bad guys, and the one with 59 senators happens to be the worst of the two (on this issue).
Remember that DMCA has not been repealed.
The current American government is pretty hostile.
This will be debated
Nobody has put forth a good reason why it can't be debated now, before it even gets to the Senate.
Why wait?
The treaty and the existing law (DMCA) that it appears to make worse instead of better, ought to be getting talked about in the bars, TV shows, newspapers, etc right now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277302</id>
	<title>We will have discussions about this on CSPAN2!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267090860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's no way you can get the US onto a treaty without getting that through The Senate, and right now the score there is 59-41 giving the Republicans only the power to filibuster and not pass anything without the help of at least nine Democrats. This will be debated. The treaty will be rejected if it's as bad as we're fearing. What are we worried about?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no way you can get the US onto a treaty without getting that through The Senate , and right now the score there is 59-41 giving the Republicans only the power to filibuster and not pass anything without the help of at least nine Democrats .
This will be debated .
The treaty will be rejected if it 's as bad as we 're fearing .
What are we worried about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no way you can get the US onto a treaty without getting that through The Senate, and right now the score there is 59-41 giving the Republicans only the power to filibuster and not pass anything without the help of at least nine Democrats.
This will be debated.
The treaty will be rejected if it's as bad as we're fearing.
What are we worried about?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277466</id>
	<title>Re:How do we folllow the law?</title>
	<author>Conchobair</author>
	<datestamp>1267091520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not a law yet.  They are trying to keep things quiet so that there is not enough time to mount large scale opposistion to the proposal.  This will allow them to pass it before most people are aware of the implications.  Once its a law it will be a lot harder to repeal or change what they decided in these secret meetings.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a law yet .
They are trying to keep things quiet so that there is not enough time to mount large scale opposistion to the proposal .
This will allow them to pass it before most people are aware of the implications .
Once its a law it will be a lot harder to repeal or change what they decided in these secret meetings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a law yet.
They are trying to keep things quiet so that there is not enough time to mount large scale opposistion to the proposal.
This will allow them to pass it before most people are aware of the implications.
Once its a law it will be a lot harder to repeal or change what they decided in these secret meetings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31301812</id>
	<title>Re:you mean "retard"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267285320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>when peoples bellies are empty, then you get revolution.</p></div><p>Even the most oppressive of governments knows enough to keep the majority of the people's bellies full and their minds entertained (Bread and circuses.)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>i still know the entire debate over intellectual property nowhere rises to the level of revolution</p></div><p>Since when is intellectual property the only thing wrong with this country?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>when peoples bellies are empty , then you get revolution.Even the most oppressive of governments knows enough to keep the majority of the people 's bellies full and their minds entertained ( Bread and circuses .
) i still know the entire debate over intellectual property nowhere rises to the level of revolutionSince when is intellectual property the only thing wrong with this country ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when peoples bellies are empty, then you get revolution.Even the most oppressive of governments knows enough to keep the majority of the people's bellies full and their minds entertained (Bread and circuses.
)i still know the entire debate over intellectual property nowhere rises to the level of revolutionSince when is intellectual property the only thing wrong with this country?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31279484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31279428</id>
	<title>Re:Just who did we elect to do this?</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1267100400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Who's representing the US in the ACTA negotiations. If it's just the usual **AA people</p></div><p>
Once again, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USTR" title="wikipedia.org">USTR</a> [wikipedia.org] is, ostensibly, the US representative for negotiating ACTA. Currently this position is held by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron\_Kirk" title="wikipedia.org">Ron Kirk</a> [wikipedia.org]. The official positions of this office can be found at their website <a href="http://www.ustr.gov/" title="ustr.gov">here.</a> [ustr.gov] Contacting the office via official channels can be done by reading through <a href="http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/contact-us" title="ustr.gov">this contact page.</a> [ustr.gov] The official USTR position and stance regarding ACTA can be found <a href="http://www.ustr.gov/acta" title="ustr.gov">here.</a> [ustr.gov] Finally, if you search for, "US Trade Representative ACTA," on google then you can find a link on the page titled, "US Trade Rep wants your input on ACTA Boing Boing," which is supposed to be a place that discusses how you can give the USTR input regarding ACTA. Unfortunately, I cannot access boing boing from work, and cannot link to it directly.
<br> <br>
Any other questions?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who 's representing the US in the ACTA negotiations .
If it 's just the usual * * AA people Once again , the USTR [ wikipedia.org ] is , ostensibly , the US representative for negotiating ACTA .
Currently this position is held by Ron Kirk [ wikipedia.org ] .
The official positions of this office can be found at their website here .
[ ustr.gov ] Contacting the office via official channels can be done by reading through this contact page .
[ ustr.gov ] The official USTR position and stance regarding ACTA can be found here .
[ ustr.gov ] Finally , if you search for , " US Trade Representative ACTA , " on google then you can find a link on the page titled , " US Trade Rep wants your input on ACTA Boing Boing , " which is supposed to be a place that discusses how you can give the USTR input regarding ACTA .
Unfortunately , I can not access boing boing from work , and can not link to it directly .
Any other questions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who's representing the US in the ACTA negotiations.
If it's just the usual **AA people
Once again, the USTR [wikipedia.org] is, ostensibly, the US representative for negotiating ACTA.
Currently this position is held by Ron Kirk [wikipedia.org].
The official positions of this office can be found at their website here.
[ustr.gov] Contacting the office via official channels can be done by reading through this contact page.
[ustr.gov] The official USTR position and stance regarding ACTA can be found here.
[ustr.gov] Finally, if you search for, "US Trade Representative ACTA," on google then you can find a link on the page titled, "US Trade Rep wants your input on ACTA Boing Boing," which is supposed to be a place that discusses how you can give the USTR input regarding ACTA.
Unfortunately, I cannot access boing boing from work, and cannot link to it directly.
Any other questions?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31278874</id>
	<title>Do something about it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267097280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Write your Senators and let them know what you think about ACTA.<br>
&nbsp; http://www.eff.org/action</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Write your Senators and let them know what you think about ACTA .
  http : //www.eff.org/action</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Write your Senators and let them know what you think about ACTA.
  http://www.eff.org/action</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31279966</id>
	<title>Re:Since when does transparency...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267104120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about you, but I don't have a furnace, let alone a plowshare.</p><p>I agree that ridicule is the only solution though.  Much public ridicule.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about you , but I do n't have a furnace , let alone a plowshare.I agree that ridicule is the only solution though .
Much public ridicule .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about you, but I don't have a furnace, let alone a plowshare.I agree that ridicule is the only solution though.
Much public ridicule.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31278466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277380</id>
	<title>Re:Just who did we elect to do this?</title>
	<author>DrJimbo</author>
	<datestamp>1267091160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Who's representing the US in the ACTA negotiations. If it's just the usual **AA people, then good luck getting this past The Senate.</p></div><p>Uh, the **AA people <b>own</b> the Senate.  They have also infiltrated the Department of Justice.   And now that the Supreme Court has ruled it is unconstitutional to limit corporate campaign funding (via advertisements) expect corporate ownership of all branches of government to increase.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who 's representing the US in the ACTA negotiations .
If it 's just the usual * * AA people , then good luck getting this past The Senate.Uh , the * * AA people own the Senate .
They have also infiltrated the Department of Justice .
And now that the Supreme Court has ruled it is unconstitutional to limit corporate campaign funding ( via advertisements ) expect corporate ownership of all branches of government to increase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who's representing the US in the ACTA negotiations.
If it's just the usual **AA people, then good luck getting this past The Senate.Uh, the **AA people own the Senate.
They have also infiltrated the Department of Justice.
And now that the Supreme Court has ruled it is unconstitutional to limit corporate campaign funding (via advertisements) expect corporate ownership of all branches of government to increase.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277806</id>
	<title>Re:Just who did we elect to do this?</title>
	<author>zach\_the\_lizard</author>
	<datestamp>1267093200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Who's representing the US in the ACTA negotiations. If it's just the usual **AA people, then good luck getting this past The Senate.</p></div><p>The DMCA made it past the Senate, as did the PATRIOT act, the war on (some) drugs, Prohibition, and I believe the Corwin Amendment. I feel your faith in the Senate is misplaced. You see, to have real influence in the Senate, you must either be someone with enough cash to make a difference in an election, such as a CEO, or you must be someone who represents a collection of people that have that power, such as union bosses.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who 's representing the US in the ACTA negotiations .
If it 's just the usual * * AA people , then good luck getting this past The Senate.The DMCA made it past the Senate , as did the PATRIOT act , the war on ( some ) drugs , Prohibition , and I believe the Corwin Amendment .
I feel your faith in the Senate is misplaced .
You see , to have real influence in the Senate , you must either be someone with enough cash to make a difference in an election , such as a CEO , or you must be someone who represents a collection of people that have that power , such as union bosses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who's representing the US in the ACTA negotiations.
If it's just the usual **AA people, then good luck getting this past The Senate.The DMCA made it past the Senate, as did the PATRIOT act, the war on (some) drugs, Prohibition, and I believe the Corwin Amendment.
I feel your faith in the Senate is misplaced.
You see, to have real influence in the Senate, you must either be someone with enough cash to make a difference in an election, such as a CEO, or you must be someone who represents a collection of people that have that power, such as union bosses.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31281688</id>
	<title>Re:How do we folllow the law?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267121460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>How are we suppose to follow a law if we do not know what it is?</i></p><p>"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it.</p><p>"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."</p><p>~Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How are we suppose to follow a law if we do not know what it is ?
" Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed ?
" said Dr. Ferris. " We want them broken .
You 'd better get it straight that it 's not a bunch of boy scouts you 're up against - then you 'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures .
We 're after power and we mean it .
You fellows were pikers , but we know the real trick , and you 'd better get wise to it .
" There 's no way to rule innocent men .
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals .
Well , when there are n't enough criminals , one makes them .
One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws .
Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens ?
What 's there in that for anyone ?
But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt .
Now , that 's the system , Mr. Rearden , that 's the game and once you understand it , you 'll be much easier to deal with .
" ~ Ayn Rand , Atlas Shrugged</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How are we suppose to follow a law if we do not know what it is?
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?
" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken.
You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures.
We're after power and we mean it.
You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it.
"There's no way to rule innocent men.
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals.
Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them.
One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens?
What's there in that for anyone?
But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt.
Now, that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.
"~Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277754</id>
	<title>Summary is wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267092900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The blog states several countries have come out against public disclosure while others have come out for it.  On the U.S. in particular, it says:<blockquote><div><p>Moreover, the U.S. has remained silent on the issue, as it remains unconvinced of the need for full disclosure.  In doing so, it would appear that the U.S. is perhaps the biggest problem since a clear position of support might be enough to persuade the remaining outliers.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Somehow the submitter has morphed this into the U.S. being the lead opponent to public disclosure.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The blog states several countries have come out against public disclosure while others have come out for it .
On the U.S. in particular , it says : Moreover , the U.S. has remained silent on the issue , as it remains unconvinced of the need for full disclosure .
In doing so , it would appear that the U.S. is perhaps the biggest problem since a clear position of support might be enough to persuade the remaining outliers .
Somehow the submitter has morphed this into the U.S. being the lead opponent to public disclosure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The blog states several countries have come out against public disclosure while others have come out for it.
On the U.S. in particular, it says:Moreover, the U.S. has remained silent on the issue, as it remains unconvinced of the need for full disclosure.
In doing so, it would appear that the U.S. is perhaps the biggest problem since a clear position of support might be enough to persuade the remaining outliers.
Somehow the submitter has morphed this into the U.S. being the lead opponent to public disclosure.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31278426</id>
	<title>Whaddaya mean "countries"?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267095480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Governments? Bribed government officials?<br>Population? The uninformed mass of the population?</p><p>Because a whole country having a single p.o.v. on <em>anything</em> is something that only happens in the fairy tales of delusional &ldquo;idealists&rdquo;. (And it&rsquo;s not even an ideal at all.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Governments ?
Bribed government officials ? Population ?
The uninformed mass of the population ? Because a whole country having a single p.o.v .
on anything is something that only happens in the fairy tales of delusional    idealists    .
( And it    s not even an ideal at all .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Governments?
Bribed government officials?Population?
The uninformed mass of the population?Because a whole country having a single p.o.v.
on anything is something that only happens in the fairy tales of delusional “idealists”.
(And it’s not even an ideal at all.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277708</id>
	<title>Re:We will have discussions about this on CSPAN2!</title>
	<author>c0d3g33k</author>
	<datestamp>1267092780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What are people worried about?  That their representatives in the Senate will cast an uninformed vote that does not include input from their constituents (informed or otherwise).  That's kind of what a representative democracy is all about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What are people worried about ?
That their representatives in the Senate will cast an uninformed vote that does not include input from their constituents ( informed or otherwise ) .
That 's kind of what a representative democracy is all about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are people worried about?
That their representatives in the Senate will cast an uninformed vote that does not include input from their constituents (informed or otherwise).
That's kind of what a representative democracy is all about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31281676</id>
	<title>Re:Just who did we elect to do this?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267121340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah! Capitalism RULES! Oh, wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah !
Capitalism RULES !
Oh , wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah!
Capitalism RULES!
Oh, wait...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31279954</id>
	<title>Re:Since when does transparency...</title>
	<author>ScrewMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1267104000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you're not firing up the furnace and making ready to beat your plowshares into swords, you're not doing enough.</p></div><p>Swords? What good are swords. I'm beating my plowshares into cruise missiles. When they come for me, I'm taking them <i>all</i> out!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're not firing up the furnace and making ready to beat your plowshares into swords , you 're not doing enough.Swords ?
What good are swords .
I 'm beating my plowshares into cruise missiles .
When they come for me , I 'm taking them all out !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're not firing up the furnace and making ready to beat your plowshares into swords, you're not doing enough.Swords?
What good are swords.
I'm beating my plowshares into cruise missiles.
When they come for me, I'm taking them all out!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31278466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277496</id>
	<title>Re:Just who did we elect to do this?</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1267091700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>good luck getting this past The Senate.</p></div><p>Although I was quite young, I remember hearing about NAFTA, and thinking, who are all of these crazy people who are against it? It's going to help give everyone jobs and promote trade!</p><p>The sad truth is that if the business community is behind ACTA, it will be pushed 24/7 as a good thing in the press until it is passed, even with a few conciliatory addenda that will be properly loopholed into oblivion. Just like the DMCA.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>good luck getting this past The Senate.Although I was quite young , I remember hearing about NAFTA , and thinking , who are all of these crazy people who are against it ?
It 's going to help give everyone jobs and promote trade ! The sad truth is that if the business community is behind ACTA , it will be pushed 24/7 as a good thing in the press until it is passed , even with a few conciliatory addenda that will be properly loopholed into oblivion .
Just like the DMCA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>good luck getting this past The Senate.Although I was quite young, I remember hearing about NAFTA, and thinking, who are all of these crazy people who are against it?
It's going to help give everyone jobs and promote trade!The sad truth is that if the business community is behind ACTA, it will be pushed 24/7 as a good thing in the press until it is passed, even with a few conciliatory addenda that will be properly loopholed into oblivion.
Just like the DMCA.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277472</id>
	<title>Re:How do we folllow the law?</title>
	<author>Nadaka</author>
	<datestamp>1267091520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is a secret law so that it can be passed without opposition. Once it is to late to do anything about it, it will be made public. If the people don't know about it, they can not protest, they can not petition their government. The powers that be can get away with governing without requiring that little flaw of democratic representation. The safest and easiest way to subvert democracy is to keep the people ignorant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a secret law so that it can be passed without opposition .
Once it is to late to do anything about it , it will be made public .
If the people do n't know about it , they can not protest , they can not petition their government .
The powers that be can get away with governing without requiring that little flaw of democratic representation .
The safest and easiest way to subvert democracy is to keep the people ignorant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a secret law so that it can be passed without opposition.
Once it is to late to do anything about it, it will be made public.
If the people don't know about it, they can not protest, they can not petition their government.
The powers that be can get away with governing without requiring that little flaw of democratic representation.
The safest and easiest way to subvert democracy is to keep the people ignorant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31279484</id>
	<title>you mean "retard"?</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1267100880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because if you don't understand how much worse an actual revolution is compared to the issues here, that's what you are</p><p>when peoples bellies are empty, then you get revolution. if they can't download cartoon network for free, not so much</p><p>and i say this as someone who has said in many comments on this site that intellectual property is morally and philosophically bankrupt. but i still know the entire debate over intellectual property nowhere rises to the level of revolution, not even remotely.  if you think it does, you are extremely, extremely out of touch with what is really important in this world</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because if you do n't understand how much worse an actual revolution is compared to the issues here , that 's what you arewhen peoples bellies are empty , then you get revolution .
if they ca n't download cartoon network for free , not so muchand i say this as someone who has said in many comments on this site that intellectual property is morally and philosophically bankrupt .
but i still know the entire debate over intellectual property nowhere rises to the level of revolution , not even remotely .
if you think it does , you are extremely , extremely out of touch with what is really important in this world</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because if you don't understand how much worse an actual revolution is compared to the issues here, that's what you arewhen peoples bellies are empty, then you get revolution.
if they can't download cartoon network for free, not so muchand i say this as someone who has said in many comments on this site that intellectual property is morally and philosophically bankrupt.
but i still know the entire debate over intellectual property nowhere rises to the level of revolution, not even remotely.
if you think it does, you are extremely, extremely out of touch with what is really important in this world</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31278466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277608</id>
	<title>Re:apt quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267092300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And then what?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And then what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then what?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31278150</id>
	<title>FIRSt pOST</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267094460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>BSD managed to make future at all fun to be again. 40,000 work8stations</htmltext>
<tokenext>BSD managed to make future at all fun to be again .
40,000 work8stations</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BSD managed to make future at all fun to be again.
40,000 work8stations</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31381114</id>
	<title>Anonymous danish coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267894980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It appears that a large part of the danish parlament including spokesmen of IT inside the government - the people that are supposed to know about this stuff, don't even know what the ACTA is all about. Nobody seems to know who has ordered Denmark to be oppose transparency. Now THAT is a disturbing fact!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It appears that a large part of the danish parlament including spokesmen of IT inside the government - the people that are supposed to know about this stuff , do n't even know what the ACTA is all about .
Nobody seems to know who has ordered Denmark to be oppose transparency .
Now THAT is a disturbing fact !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It appears that a large part of the danish parlament including spokesmen of IT inside the government - the people that are supposed to know about this stuff, don't even know what the ACTA is all about.
Nobody seems to know who has ordered Denmark to be oppose transparency.
Now THAT is a disturbing fact!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277882</id>
	<title>Contact Your Senators NOW!</title>
	<author>DustyShadow</author>
	<datestamp>1267093440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do it now!

<a href="https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&amp;page=UserAction&amp;id=383" title="eff.org">https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&amp;page=UserAction&amp;id=383</a> [eff.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do it now !
https : //secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy ? cmd = display&amp;page = UserAction&amp;id = 383 [ eff.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do it now!
https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&amp;page=UserAction&amp;id=383 [eff.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277890</id>
	<title>Re:How do we folllow the law?</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1267093500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It isn't "the law".</p><p>Once it's all worked out it will be published, has to pass the senate after all, so you'll have no excuse to not obey it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is n't " the law " .Once it 's all worked out it will be published , has to pass the senate after all , so you 'll have no excuse to not obey it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It isn't "the law".Once it's all worked out it will be published, has to pass the senate after all, so you'll have no excuse to not obey it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277442</id>
	<title>Re:We will have discussions about this on CSPAN2!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267091400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The D's are not reliable opponents of **AA craziness.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The D 's are not reliable opponents of * * AA craziness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The D's are not reliable opponents of **AA craziness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31279808</id>
	<title>Re:apt quote</title>
	<author>ScrewMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1267103100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
  --  Thomas Jefferson</p></div><p>Home of the (not so) brave (anymore), land of the (less) free (than we used to be.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants .
" -- Thomas JeffersonHome of the ( not so ) brave ( anymore ) , land of the ( less ) free ( than we used to be .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
"
  --  Thomas JeffersonHome of the (not so) brave (anymore), land of the (less) free (than we used to be.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31284774</id>
	<title>Please don't export more</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267198380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear USA</p><p>Please don't export more McFreedom.</p><p>Sincerely,<br>Everyone else</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear USAPlease do n't export more McFreedom.Sincerely,Everyone else</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear USAPlease don't export more McFreedom.Sincerely,Everyone else</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277214</id>
	<title>apt quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267090440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
  --  Thomas Jefferson</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants .
" -- Thomas Jefferson</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
"
  --  Thomas Jefferson</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277228</id>
	<title>Just who did we elect to do this?</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1267090560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As the Republicans are saying on health care that the people are against it, but the Democrats were elected by the people with full knowledge they'd try to do this... they seem out of place.</p><p>Who's representing the US in the ACTA negotiations. If it's just the usual **AA people, then good luck getting this past The Senate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As the Republicans are saying on health care that the people are against it , but the Democrats were elected by the people with full knowledge they 'd try to do this... they seem out of place.Who 's representing the US in the ACTA negotiations .
If it 's just the usual * * AA people , then good luck getting this past The Senate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the Republicans are saying on health care that the people are against it, but the Democrats were elected by the people with full knowledge they'd try to do this... they seem out of place.Who's representing the US in the ACTA negotiations.
If it's just the usual **AA people, then good luck getting this past The Senate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277272</id>
	<title>Glad I live in the land of the free.</title>
	<author>FiloEleven</author>
	<datestamp>1267090680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm glad I live in the land of the free,<br>where the ones in charge aren't accountable to me.<br>They say they do it all for my own good,<br>so I ought to keep my head down like they say I should.</p><p>Meh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad I live in the land of the free,where the ones in charge are n't accountable to me.They say they do it all for my own good,so I ought to keep my head down like they say I should.Meh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad I live in the land of the free,where the ones in charge aren't accountable to me.They say they do it all for my own good,so I ought to keep my head down like they say I should.Meh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31278734</id>
	<title>Re:How do we folllow the law?</title>
	<author>Spad</author>
	<datestamp>1267096680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not a law, it's a treaty. Treaties are much better than laws on their own because while laws can easily be opposed by the public before being passed, treaties can be passed in secret and then used as a basis for forcing laws through on the grounds that they are a requirement of the treaty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a law , it 's a treaty .
Treaties are much better than laws on their own because while laws can easily be opposed by the public before being passed , treaties can be passed in secret and then used as a basis for forcing laws through on the grounds that they are a requirement of the treaty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a law, it's a treaty.
Treaties are much better than laws on their own because while laws can easily be opposed by the public before being passed, treaties can be passed in secret and then used as a basis for forcing laws through on the grounds that they are a requirement of the treaty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277404</id>
	<title>Re:We will have discussions about this on CSPAN2!</title>
	<author>Moridineas</author>
	<datestamp>1267091280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll be perfectly honest that I have not followed the ACTA issue closely at all. Are you just assuming that the Democrats will be against and Republicans are for it, or are you going on actual statements? Let's not forget that Senator Disney was himself a democrat, and that the lines of party/ideological purity often seem fairly blurred in cases involving IP, international trade and treaties, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll be perfectly honest that I have not followed the ACTA issue closely at all .
Are you just assuming that the Democrats will be against and Republicans are for it , or are you going on actual statements ?
Let 's not forget that Senator Disney was himself a democrat , and that the lines of party/ideological purity often seem fairly blurred in cases involving IP , international trade and treaties , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll be perfectly honest that I have not followed the ACTA issue closely at all.
Are you just assuming that the Democrats will be against and Republicans are for it, or are you going on actual statements?
Let's not forget that Senator Disney was himself a democrat, and that the lines of party/ideological purity often seem fairly blurred in cases involving IP, international trade and treaties, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277362</id>
	<title>Re:apt quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267091100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. It's nigh time to overthrow the current US Government. Now, who's with me?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
It 's nigh time to overthrow the current US Government .
Now , who 's with me ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
It's nigh time to overthrow the current US Government.
Now, who's with me?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277440</id>
	<title>As a Dane</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267091400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry.. In so many ways</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry.. In so many ways</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry.. In so many ways</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_201256_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_201256_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31279116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_201256_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_201256_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_201256_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_201256_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31278734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_201256_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_201256_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31281676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_201256_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31281688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_201256_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31279808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_201256_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_201256_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_201256_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31279428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_201256_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31278384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_201256_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31279966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31278466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_201256_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_201256_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_201256_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_201256_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31279954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31278466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_201256_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31280070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_201256_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_201256_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_201256_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_201256_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31301812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31279484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31278466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_201256.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277374
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31278384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277806
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31281676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31279428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277380
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31280070
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_201256.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31279116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_201256.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31278608
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_201256.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31278734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31281688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_201256.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277440
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_201256.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277400
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_201256.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31278466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31279966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31279484
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31301812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31279954
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_201256.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277754
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_201256.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31279808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277524
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_201256.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_201256.31277272
</commentlist>
</conversation>
