<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_26_0128226</id>
	<title>Aussie Internet Censorship Minister Censors Self</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1267199400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, the minister attempting to ram the great firewall of Oz down everyone's throat, has been <a href="http://www.news.com.au/technology/conroys-website-removes-references-to-filter/story-e6frfro0-1225834474153">removing all traces of the unpopular legislation from his main website</a> with a JavaScript filter. From the article: 'It was revealed today a script within the minister's homepage deliberately removes references to internet filtering from the list. In the function that creates the list, or "tag cloud," there is a condition that if the words "ISP filtering" appear they should be skipped and not displayed.' Bear in mind, this is the same minister that tried to get the ISP of tech forum Whirlpool to  <a href="http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,25181408-15306,00.html">pull the site</a> after users there posted a response email from the ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority)."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Communications Minister Stephen Conroy , the minister attempting to ram the great firewall of Oz down everyone 's throat , has been removing all traces of the unpopular legislation from his main website with a JavaScript filter .
From the article : 'It was revealed today a script within the minister 's homepage deliberately removes references to internet filtering from the list .
In the function that creates the list , or " tag cloud , " there is a condition that if the words " ISP filtering " appear they should be skipped and not displayed .
' Bear in mind , this is the same minister that tried to get the ISP of tech forum Whirlpool to pull the site after users there posted a response email from the ACMA ( Australian Communications and Media Authority ) .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, the minister attempting to ram the great firewall of Oz down everyone's throat, has been removing all traces of the unpopular legislation from his main website with a JavaScript filter.
From the article: 'It was revealed today a script within the minister's homepage deliberately removes references to internet filtering from the list.
In the function that creates the list, or "tag cloud," there is a condition that if the words "ISP filtering" appear they should be skipped and not displayed.
' Bear in mind, this is the same minister that tried to get the ISP of tech forum Whirlpool to  pull the site after users there posted a response email from the ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority).
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31291056</id>
	<title>Re:Public opinion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267180980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Somebody rings you up or corners you in the street and asks you if you support internet filtering and you say yes so you don't look like a creep but when you get into the polling booth it might be an entirely different situation.</i> </p><p>Might be.</p><p>But probably won't be.</p><p>This how the issues were framed by an ABC poll:</p><p><i>The exact questions asked of the 1,000 people [in a telephone poll] were:</i></p><p><i>Would you say you are in favour or not in favour of having a mandatory Government Internet filter that would automatically block all access in Australia, to overseas websites containing material that is Refused Classification?</i></p><p><i>This question followed a definition of 'refused classification' material, as images and information about one or more of the following:</i></p><p><i>* child sexual abuse;<br>* bestiality;<br>* sexual violence;<br>* gratuitous, exploitative or offensive sexual fetishes; and<br>* detailed instructions on or promotion of crime, violence or use of illegal drugs.</i></p><p><i>If a mandatory Internet Filter is established, are you in favour or not in favour of the community being advised which websites have been Refused Classification and the reason why they have been refused classification?</i> </p><p>81\% favored a mandatory government filter.</p><p>91\% wanted to see any government black list made public. <a href="http://www.builderau.com.au/news/soa/80-of-Aussies-support-filter-/0,339028227,339300949,00.htm" title="builderau.com.au">80\% of Aussies support filter</a> [builderau.com.au] </p><p>That strikes me as a reasonably nuanced response. Though not what the geek wanted to hear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somebody rings you up or corners you in the street and asks you if you support internet filtering and you say yes so you do n't look like a creep but when you get into the polling booth it might be an entirely different situation .
Might be.But probably wo n't be.This how the issues were framed by an ABC poll : The exact questions asked of the 1,000 people [ in a telephone poll ] were : Would you say you are in favour or not in favour of having a mandatory Government Internet filter that would automatically block all access in Australia , to overseas websites containing material that is Refused Classification ? This question followed a definition of 'refused classification ' material , as images and information about one or more of the following : * child sexual abuse ; * bestiality ; * sexual violence ; * gratuitous , exploitative or offensive sexual fetishes ; and * detailed instructions on or promotion of crime , violence or use of illegal drugs.If a mandatory Internet Filter is established , are you in favour or not in favour of the community being advised which websites have been Refused Classification and the reason why they have been refused classification ?
81 \ % favored a mandatory government filter.91 \ % wanted to see any government black list made public .
80 \ % of Aussies support filter [ builderau.com.au ] That strikes me as a reasonably nuanced response .
Though not what the geek wanted to hear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somebody rings you up or corners you in the street and asks you if you support internet filtering and you say yes so you don't look like a creep but when you get into the polling booth it might be an entirely different situation.
Might be.But probably won't be.This how the issues were framed by an ABC poll:The exact questions asked of the 1,000 people [in a telephone poll] were:Would you say you are in favour or not in favour of having a mandatory Government Internet filter that would automatically block all access in Australia, to overseas websites containing material that is Refused Classification?This question followed a definition of 'refused classification' material, as images and information about one or more of the following:* child sexual abuse;* bestiality;* sexual violence;* gratuitous, exploitative or offensive sexual fetishes; and* detailed instructions on or promotion of crime, violence or use of illegal drugs.If a mandatory Internet Filter is established, are you in favour or not in favour of the community being advised which websites have been Refused Classification and the reason why they have been refused classification?
81\% favored a mandatory government filter.91\% wanted to see any government black list made public.
80\% of Aussies support filter [builderau.com.au] That strikes me as a reasonably nuanced response.
Though not what the geek wanted to hear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281396</id>
	<title>Elections are coming up...</title>
	<author>atomicstrawberry</author>
	<datestamp>1267117860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's federal elections later this year so I imagine the government will be wanting to keep this particular piece of extremely unpopular legislation on the down-low for the rest of the year so that they can do what they did last time and trot it back out after the elections with the statement that they received a mandate from the people to implement it, despite it not actually being a major part of their platform.</p><p>After all, no political party in a supposedly free country would want to start campaigning with something as undemocratic on their books as a secret censorship blacklist run by the government with no judicial oversight and no right of appeal which blocks 'undesireable' content as defined by the government's whim at that particular time of the day. Any competent opposition could make it into a very major issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's federal elections later this year so I imagine the government will be wanting to keep this particular piece of extremely unpopular legislation on the down-low for the rest of the year so that they can do what they did last time and trot it back out after the elections with the statement that they received a mandate from the people to implement it , despite it not actually being a major part of their platform.After all , no political party in a supposedly free country would want to start campaigning with something as undemocratic on their books as a secret censorship blacklist run by the government with no judicial oversight and no right of appeal which blocks 'undesireable ' content as defined by the government 's whim at that particular time of the day .
Any competent opposition could make it into a very major issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's federal elections later this year so I imagine the government will be wanting to keep this particular piece of extremely unpopular legislation on the down-low for the rest of the year so that they can do what they did last time and trot it back out after the elections with the statement that they received a mandate from the people to implement it, despite it not actually being a major part of their platform.After all, no political party in a supposedly free country would want to start campaigning with something as undemocratic on their books as a secret censorship blacklist run by the government with no judicial oversight and no right of appeal which blocks 'undesireable' content as defined by the government's whim at that particular time of the day.
Any competent opposition could make it into a very major issue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282780</id>
	<title>How about some alternatives people</title>
	<author>jimboindeutchland</author>
	<datestamp>1267178760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The biggest problem I have with this whole debate is that, while there are plenty of people that are flat against the blacklist (for plenty of good reasons), nobody is offering any decent alternatives or trying to find a middle ground.</p><p>From what I understand, the main role of this filter is help parents police their kid's activities on the internet, which in principle, I'm all for. There's the secondary goal of preventing kiddie porn and other unsavory content from appearing too, but blocking it won't make it go away.</p><p>So why not an alternative? They could set up an opt-in system that allows parent's to decide what their kids see (and achieve their primary objective) and let the police go after the child pornographers (which they do already).</p><p>As an example: a custom, government subsidised router with a white list (Conroy can handle that) of a few thousand domains/url's should be enough for most parents. Any additional sites that the parent's want to allow can be added via a password controlled page on the router. One could also offer parents the ability to review pages that have been added recently in case they're dumb enough to let their kids figure out their password. I'm not the worlds best developer but I'm pretty sure that even I could implement something like that.</p><p>

That way everyone wins:
</p><ul>
<li>the parents win: they can protect their kids.</li><li>Adults who want to look at porn win: it's an opt in system.</li><li>ISP's win: they don't have to deal with implementing this dumbass filter.</li><li>The government wins: they're protecting the kids and achieving their primary goal.</li></ul><p>I'm know that they want to block ALL denied-classification content, but if you've spent a bit of time on the internet, you'd know that it's just not feasible. Why don't they make that a separate policy and at least get some benefit out of this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest problem I have with this whole debate is that , while there are plenty of people that are flat against the blacklist ( for plenty of good reasons ) , nobody is offering any decent alternatives or trying to find a middle ground.From what I understand , the main role of this filter is help parents police their kid 's activities on the internet , which in principle , I 'm all for .
There 's the secondary goal of preventing kiddie porn and other unsavory content from appearing too , but blocking it wo n't make it go away.So why not an alternative ?
They could set up an opt-in system that allows parent 's to decide what their kids see ( and achieve their primary objective ) and let the police go after the child pornographers ( which they do already ) .As an example : a custom , government subsidised router with a white list ( Conroy can handle that ) of a few thousand domains/url 's should be enough for most parents .
Any additional sites that the parent 's want to allow can be added via a password controlled page on the router .
One could also offer parents the ability to review pages that have been added recently in case they 're dumb enough to let their kids figure out their password .
I 'm not the worlds best developer but I 'm pretty sure that even I could implement something like that .
That way everyone wins : the parents win : they can protect their kids.Adults who want to look at porn win : it 's an opt in system.ISP 's win : they do n't have to deal with implementing this dumbass filter.The government wins : they 're protecting the kids and achieving their primary goal.I 'm know that they want to block ALL denied-classification content , but if you 've spent a bit of time on the internet , you 'd know that it 's just not feasible .
Why do n't they make that a separate policy and at least get some benefit out of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest problem I have with this whole debate is that, while there are plenty of people that are flat against the blacklist (for plenty of good reasons), nobody is offering any decent alternatives or trying to find a middle ground.From what I understand, the main role of this filter is help parents police their kid's activities on the internet, which in principle, I'm all for.
There's the secondary goal of preventing kiddie porn and other unsavory content from appearing too, but blocking it won't make it go away.So why not an alternative?
They could set up an opt-in system that allows parent's to decide what their kids see (and achieve their primary objective) and let the police go after the child pornographers (which they do already).As an example: a custom, government subsidised router with a white list (Conroy can handle that) of a few thousand domains/url's should be enough for most parents.
Any additional sites that the parent's want to allow can be added via a password controlled page on the router.
One could also offer parents the ability to review pages that have been added recently in case they're dumb enough to let their kids figure out their password.
I'm not the worlds best developer but I'm pretty sure that even I could implement something like that.
That way everyone wins:

the parents win: they can protect their kids.Adults who want to look at porn win: it's an opt in system.ISP's win: they don't have to deal with implementing this dumbass filter.The government wins: they're protecting the kids and achieving their primary goal.I'm know that they want to block ALL denied-classification content, but if you've spent a bit of time on the internet, you'd know that it's just not feasible.
Why don't they make that a separate policy and at least get some benefit out of this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281536</id>
	<title>Is Conroy's Behaviour Evil?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267119660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I understand TFA correctly, he's pulled references to internet filtering from his website. He's done it through a script, rather than by completely deleting the reference, which suggests to me this is meant to be a temporary change. Maybe the internet filtering pages need some work and he doesn't want to display them at the moment.

But I can't see any way it's morally worse than, say, deleting the internet filtering link altogether. In fact, it doesn't seem to be evil at all. So what's the fuss?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I understand TFA correctly , he 's pulled references to internet filtering from his website .
He 's done it through a script , rather than by completely deleting the reference , which suggests to me this is meant to be a temporary change .
Maybe the internet filtering pages need some work and he does n't want to display them at the moment .
But I ca n't see any way it 's morally worse than , say , deleting the internet filtering link altogether .
In fact , it does n't seem to be evil at all .
So what 's the fuss ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I understand TFA correctly, he's pulled references to internet filtering from his website.
He's done it through a script, rather than by completely deleting the reference, which suggests to me this is meant to be a temporary change.
Maybe the internet filtering pages need some work and he doesn't want to display them at the moment.
But I can't see any way it's morally worse than, say, deleting the internet filtering link altogether.
In fact, it doesn't seem to be evil at all.
So what's the fuss?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281318</id>
	<title>Puppet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267116840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Conroy is only a puppet for the ACL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Conroy is only a puppet for the ACL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Conroy is only a puppet for the ACL</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282128</id>
	<title>Re:Elections are coming up...</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1267126920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, at least you got a good straight answer out of him. A politician that will answer a question, even at the expense of disappointing his audience, has my respect.</p><p>Not my vote, of course, since he disappointed me too. Actually, you need to have some expectations to be disappointed, so I guess he didn't even do that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , at least you got a good straight answer out of him .
A politician that will answer a question , even at the expense of disappointing his audience , has my respect.Not my vote , of course , since he disappointed me too .
Actually , you need to have some expectations to be disappointed , so I guess he did n't even do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, at least you got a good straight answer out of him.
A politician that will answer a question, even at the expense of disappointing his audience, has my respect.Not my vote, of course, since he disappointed me too.
Actually, you need to have some expectations to be disappointed, so I guess he didn't even do that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281456</id>
	<title>Re:Elections are coming up...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267118760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Any competent opposition could make it into a very major issue.</p></div><p>*sigh*..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any competent opposition could make it into a very major issue .
* sigh * . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any competent opposition could make it into a very major issue.
*sigh*..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281870</id>
	<title>Re:What more proof do you need?</title>
	<author>turing\_m</author>
	<datestamp>1267123740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>$250 Million for the free to air channels around Australia with no strings attached. I wonder why there is little to no coverage in the main stream press now days?</p></div></blockquote><p>
Don't forget the cosy ski trip Conroy had in the US with Kerry Stokes, owner of channel 7, just before the $250 million handout. <a href="http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26718780-953,00.html" title="news.com.au">http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26718780-953,00.html</a> [news.com.au]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 250 Million for the free to air channels around Australia with no strings attached .
I wonder why there is little to no coverage in the main stream press now days ?
Do n't forget the cosy ski trip Conroy had in the US with Kerry Stokes , owner of channel 7 , just before the $ 250 million handout .
http : //www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26718780-953,00.html [ news.com.au ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$250 Million for the free to air channels around Australia with no strings attached.
I wonder why there is little to no coverage in the main stream press now days?
Don't forget the cosy ski trip Conroy had in the US with Kerry Stokes, owner of channel 7, just before the $250 million handout.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26718780-953,00.html [news.com.au]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31284208</id>
	<title>Re:Not helpful</title>
	<author>Puff\_Of\_Hot\_Air</author>
	<datestamp>1267195320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, the vast majority of abuse against children is committed by close family members (fathers, mothers, brothers, uncles etc). This is true of Australia as it is of every country. Now, it is true that the majority of high profile media reported cases are probably those perpetrated by the catholic church, however abuse has been rampant in every institution relating to children where oversite is absent. Recently, Rudd appologised to the men and women who had been abused in the various institutions as children. Some of these institutions were state run, and some church run. I do not support the internet filter, and I certainly do not defend the church organizations who's lack of oversite and attempts to cover up abusers lead to so much abuse. Having said that, your statement is in error in regard to the most common abuse vector.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the vast majority of abuse against children is committed by close family members ( fathers , mothers , brothers , uncles etc ) .
This is true of Australia as it is of every country .
Now , it is true that the majority of high profile media reported cases are probably those perpetrated by the catholic church , however abuse has been rampant in every institution relating to children where oversite is absent .
Recently , Rudd appologised to the men and women who had been abused in the various institutions as children .
Some of these institutions were state run , and some church run .
I do not support the internet filter , and I certainly do not defend the church organizations who 's lack of oversite and attempts to cover up abusers lead to so much abuse .
Having said that , your statement is in error in regard to the most common abuse vector .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the vast majority of abuse against children is committed by close family members (fathers, mothers, brothers, uncles etc).
This is true of Australia as it is of every country.
Now, it is true that the majority of high profile media reported cases are probably those perpetrated by the catholic church, however abuse has been rampant in every institution relating to children where oversite is absent.
Recently, Rudd appologised to the men and women who had been abused in the various institutions as children.
Some of these institutions were state run, and some church run.
I do not support the internet filter, and I certainly do not defend the church organizations who's lack of oversite and attempts to cover up abusers lead to so much abuse.
Having said that, your statement is in error in regard to the most common abuse vector.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282040</id>
	<title>Re:Elections are coming up...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267125720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(the Prime Minister- Americans would say 'president')</p></div><p>(Um, no, we would do no such thing. We would say 'Prime Minister'. 'President' is pretty obviously a completely different word, even to us Americans. But thanks for playing!)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( the Prime Minister- Americans would say 'president ' ) ( Um , no , we would do no such thing .
We would say 'Prime Minister' .
'President ' is pretty obviously a completely different word , even to us Americans .
But thanks for playing !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(the Prime Minister- Americans would say 'president')(Um, no, we would do no such thing.
We would say 'Prime Minister'.
'President' is pretty obviously a completely different word, even to us Americans.
But thanks for playing!
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281418</id>
	<title>Not helpful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267118160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does anyone else find the tone of this article, and the tone used by similar stories about Conroy, to be childish and overall harmful to any kind of legitimate debate or possibility of changing the minds of the people in charge?</p><p>Saying he wants to "ram the great firewall of Oz down everyone's throat" makes you sound like a childish politician yourself, making every point in as dramatic a tone as possible, one step away from begging him to 'think of the children'. It almost makes me feel sympathy for the guy, who surely can't like what he reads when he makes a vanity google search.</p><p>It seems that 'geeks', 'gamers' and 'youths' generally can't seem to understand that when you complain rudely, the powers-that-be aren't going to listen. If you behave in a way that they see as childish, they will continue to treat you like children. That's why constantly defending games as 'not harmful' (instead of the more measured response, 'surely not any more harmful than movies, etc') is not useful. That's why Jack Thompson stayed around for so long. It's why Conroy's determination continues to get stronger, and why the SA Attorney-General isn't going to approve an R-rating anytime soon.</p><p>USE YOUR NOGGINS, INTERNET</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone else find the tone of this article , and the tone used by similar stories about Conroy , to be childish and overall harmful to any kind of legitimate debate or possibility of changing the minds of the people in charge ? Saying he wants to " ram the great firewall of Oz down everyone 's throat " makes you sound like a childish politician yourself , making every point in as dramatic a tone as possible , one step away from begging him to 'think of the children' .
It almost makes me feel sympathy for the guy , who surely ca n't like what he reads when he makes a vanity google search.It seems that 'geeks ' , 'gamers ' and 'youths ' generally ca n't seem to understand that when you complain rudely , the powers-that-be are n't going to listen .
If you behave in a way that they see as childish , they will continue to treat you like children .
That 's why constantly defending games as 'not harmful ' ( instead of the more measured response , 'surely not any more harmful than movies , etc ' ) is not useful .
That 's why Jack Thompson stayed around for so long .
It 's why Conroy 's determination continues to get stronger , and why the SA Attorney-General is n't going to approve an R-rating anytime soon.USE YOUR NOGGINS , INTERNET</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone else find the tone of this article, and the tone used by similar stories about Conroy, to be childish and overall harmful to any kind of legitimate debate or possibility of changing the minds of the people in charge?Saying he wants to "ram the great firewall of Oz down everyone's throat" makes you sound like a childish politician yourself, making every point in as dramatic a tone as possible, one step away from begging him to 'think of the children'.
It almost makes me feel sympathy for the guy, who surely can't like what he reads when he makes a vanity google search.It seems that 'geeks', 'gamers' and 'youths' generally can't seem to understand that when you complain rudely, the powers-that-be aren't going to listen.
If you behave in a way that they see as childish, they will continue to treat you like children.
That's why constantly defending games as 'not harmful' (instead of the more measured response, 'surely not any more harmful than movies, etc') is not useful.
That's why Jack Thompson stayed around for so long.
It's why Conroy's determination continues to get stronger, and why the SA Attorney-General isn't going to approve an R-rating anytime soon.USE YOUR NOGGINS, INTERNET</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31292496</id>
	<title>Re:What more proof do you need?</title>
	<author>Tokerat</author>
	<datestamp>1267188840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wonder why there is little to no coverage in the main stream press now days?</p></div><p>It's filtered?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder why there is little to no coverage in the main stream press now days ? It 's filtered ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder why there is little to no coverage in the main stream press now days?It's filtered?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283058</id>
	<title>Re:Quite a change</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1267182360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Australia was under a heavy censorship blanket until the 1970's.<br>
It was slowly lifted until the early 1990's.<br>
Then it was locked down again via movie cuts and bans.<br>
Books on the Iraq war where also destroyed in suburbia.<br>
Now faith based groups have their people in or are very close to power on both sides of politics and can revert Australia back to the dark ages again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Australia was under a heavy censorship blanket until the 1970 's .
It was slowly lifted until the early 1990 's .
Then it was locked down again via movie cuts and bans .
Books on the Iraq war where also destroyed in suburbia .
Now faith based groups have their people in or are very close to power on both sides of politics and can revert Australia back to the dark ages again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Australia was under a heavy censorship blanket until the 1970's.
It was slowly lifted until the early 1990's.
Then it was locked down again via movie cuts and bans.
Books on the Iraq war where also destroyed in suburbia.
Now faith based groups have their people in or are very close to power on both sides of politics and can revert Australia back to the dark ages again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281650</id>
	<title>humor?</title>
	<author>Khashishi</author>
	<datestamp>1267121040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I read the headline, I thought the summary would be about how the internet censorship minister accidentally blocked himself from seeing things he wanted to see. Yes, that would be sweet justice and deserving of the "humor" tag. But, the article speaks of something far more nefarious. It should probably be tagged "scary", not "humor". Except that it's kinda funny in a we're fucked kind of way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I read the headline , I thought the summary would be about how the internet censorship minister accidentally blocked himself from seeing things he wanted to see .
Yes , that would be sweet justice and deserving of the " humor " tag .
But , the article speaks of something far more nefarious .
It should probably be tagged " scary " , not " humor " .
Except that it 's kinda funny in a we 're fucked kind of way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I read the headline, I thought the summary would be about how the internet censorship minister accidentally blocked himself from seeing things he wanted to see.
Yes, that would be sweet justice and deserving of the "humor" tag.
But, the article speaks of something far more nefarious.
It should probably be tagged "scary", not "humor".
Except that it's kinda funny in a we're fucked kind of way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281484</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267119120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a 7 digit UID and I have 31 first posts.  You need to work on cumming first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a 7 digit UID and I have 31 first posts .
You need to work on cumming first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a 7 digit UID and I have 31 first posts.
You need to work on cumming first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281768</id>
	<title>Re:Not helpful</title>
	<author>ghostdoc</author>
	<datestamp>1267122360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I get involved in these arguments, I like to point out that in fact the vast majority of child abuse in this country has been carried out by members of the clergy, particularly the Catholic church, and that statistically the most effective way of reducing child abuse in this country would be to close all church-run orphanages and missions.</p><p>This would eliminate something like 99\% of all child abuse, and wouldn't affect the everyday lives of anyone else. While implementing the Conroy Filter will create a burden on the rest of the country but will not stop a single child being abused.</p><p>Needless to say, this doesn't go over particularly well</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I get involved in these arguments , I like to point out that in fact the vast majority of child abuse in this country has been carried out by members of the clergy , particularly the Catholic church , and that statistically the most effective way of reducing child abuse in this country would be to close all church-run orphanages and missions.This would eliminate something like 99 \ % of all child abuse , and would n't affect the everyday lives of anyone else .
While implementing the Conroy Filter will create a burden on the rest of the country but will not stop a single child being abused.Needless to say , this does n't go over particularly well</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I get involved in these arguments, I like to point out that in fact the vast majority of child abuse in this country has been carried out by members of the clergy, particularly the Catholic church, and that statistically the most effective way of reducing child abuse in this country would be to close all church-run orphanages and missions.This would eliminate something like 99\% of all child abuse, and wouldn't affect the everyday lives of anyone else.
While implementing the Conroy Filter will create a burden on the rest of the country but will not stop a single child being abused.Needless to say, this doesn't go over particularly well</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281316</id>
	<title>Filtering</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267116840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The previous first post was skipped and not displayed because it contained the words "ISP filtering."</htmltext>
<tokenext>The previous first post was skipped and not displayed because it contained the words " ISP filtering .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The previous first post was skipped and not displayed because it contained the words "ISP filtering.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281500</id>
	<title>Re:His department also self-censors their email.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267119360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's most likely generated by some backend process and written into the page. They just skip in the JS and not the data retrieval stage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's most likely generated by some backend process and written into the page .
They just skip in the JS and not the data retrieval stage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's most likely generated by some backend process and written into the page.
They just skip in the JS and not the data retrieval stage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282990</id>
	<title>Re:National Disgrace</title>
	<author>BiggerIsBetter</author>
	<datestamp>1267181520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FWIW, I'm embarrassed to be a New Zealander right today... They <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c\_id=1&amp;objectid=10628593" title="nzherald.co.nz">passed</a> [nzherald.co.nz] The Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill, so 3 strikes and we're out of pocket $15,000 and kicked offline.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FWIW , I 'm embarrassed to be a New Zealander right today... They passed [ nzherald.co.nz ] The Copyright ( Infringing File Sharing ) Amendment Bill , so 3 strikes and we 're out of pocket $ 15,000 and kicked offline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FWIW, I'm embarrassed to be a New Zealander right today... They passed [nzherald.co.nz] The Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill, so 3 strikes and we're out of pocket $15,000 and kicked offline.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282514</id>
	<title>Chip on your shoulder</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267175760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow I'd like to see where you are getting your stats from but the majority of child abuse is from family and friends (82\% according to a quick wiki search)</p><p>Maybe show some references and I'll take you seriously but at the moment you are coming across as nothing more than a bigot.</p><p>Kactus</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow I 'd like to see where you are getting your stats from but the majority of child abuse is from family and friends ( 82 \ % according to a quick wiki search ) Maybe show some references and I 'll take you seriously but at the moment you are coming across as nothing more than a bigot.Kactus</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow I'd like to see where you are getting your stats from but the majority of child abuse is from family and friends (82\% according to a quick wiki search)Maybe show some references and I'll take you seriously but at the moment you are coming across as nothing more than a bigot.Kactus</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283288</id>
	<title>With apologies to Jack O'Hagan</title>
	<author>Dexter Herbivore</author>
	<datestamp>1267185480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who is it that all Australia raves about? <p>
Who has won our very most complaints? </p><p>
Now is it Amy Johnson, or little Mickey Mouse? </p><p>
No! it's just a country lad who's bringing down the house. </p><p>
And he's Our Steve Conroy- And I ask you is he any good? </p><p>
Our Steve Conroy- Making laws like no other should.</p><p>
For when he goes in to bat</p><p>
He knocks ev'ry geek flat,</p><p>
For there isn't any thing he cannot do,</p><p>
Our Steve Conroy - Ev'ry Aussie "says get f**ked" to you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who is it that all Australia raves about ?
Who has won our very most complaints ?
Now is it Amy Johnson , or little Mickey Mouse ?
No ! it 's just a country lad who 's bringing down the house .
And he 's Our Steve Conroy- And I ask you is he any good ?
Our Steve Conroy- Making laws like no other should .
For when he goes in to bat He knocks ev'ry geek flat , For there is n't any thing he can not do , Our Steve Conroy - Ev'ry Aussie " says get f * * ked " to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who is it that all Australia raves about?
Who has won our very most complaints?
Now is it Amy Johnson, or little Mickey Mouse?
No! it's just a country lad who's bringing down the house.
And he's Our Steve Conroy- And I ask you is he any good?
Our Steve Conroy- Making laws like no other should.
For when he goes in to bat
He knocks ev'ry geek flat,
For there isn't any thing he cannot do,
Our Steve Conroy - Ev'ry Aussie "says get f**ked" to you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283252</id>
	<title>Re:Quite a change</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267185000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But drawing comparisons to China or North Korea is a bit of a stretch</p></div><p> <a href="http://apcmag.com/now-conroy-wants-google-to-filter-youtube-in-australia.htm" title="apcmag.com" rel="nofollow">Now Conroy wants Google to filter YouTube in Australia</a> [apcmag.com] </p><p>Conroy himself is drawing comparisons with China without the need for those opposed to Internet Censorship in Australia to do so.</p><p>The Liberals, with their born-again conservatism in light of their newly appointed leader (Tony Abbott, aka the Mad Monk) support the concept of censoring our 'net.  The concept is flawed, it's not the implementation that we should focus on.  And we have to remember this.  Information is meant to be free, etc etc.</p><p>The only possible way the Liberals (and the name MUST be capitalised for it to mean exactly who they are - they are by no means liberal, save for a minority faction of the party) will vote against this is if it is seen to be flawed in a technological sense (i.e. it will slow down our Internet)</p><p>The aforementioned article shows how Conroy has found through the trials that large sites WILL be slowed down when just one element of the site is added to the blacklist.  This is because the filter works by sending all content for a filtered site through a proxy if a single element is added.  The filter will be the bottleneck, particularly for large sites, and Conroy knows it, and he's posturing for a position once this becomes general knowledge.</p><p>Google are only required to filter, in the way Conroy is now suggesting, in countries like China and perhaps North Korea.  Now Conroy is trying to apply the same rules here.  Luckily Google, with their recent positioning on China, are pushing back.  But, how hard they continue to push back is anyone's guess.  Perhaps the US will strike a secret deal with Australia that REQUIRES Google to filter content, just like their doing for the sake of the media companies, and music / movie piracy.</p><p>Its just a simple HTTP blacklist, yes. But it's the idea of censorship we should be worried about, and the long-term impact it will have to online commerce.  Not to mention the long term prospect that MORE conservative governments will use the implemented technology for something much worse than what's suggested now.</p><p>Both major parties support the idea NOW, and that's what worries me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But drawing comparisons to China or North Korea is a bit of a stretch Now Conroy wants Google to filter YouTube in Australia [ apcmag.com ] Conroy himself is drawing comparisons with China without the need for those opposed to Internet Censorship in Australia to do so.The Liberals , with their born-again conservatism in light of their newly appointed leader ( Tony Abbott , aka the Mad Monk ) support the concept of censoring our 'net .
The concept is flawed , it 's not the implementation that we should focus on .
And we have to remember this .
Information is meant to be free , etc etc.The only possible way the Liberals ( and the name MUST be capitalised for it to mean exactly who they are - they are by no means liberal , save for a minority faction of the party ) will vote against this is if it is seen to be flawed in a technological sense ( i.e .
it will slow down our Internet ) The aforementioned article shows how Conroy has found through the trials that large sites WILL be slowed down when just one element of the site is added to the blacklist .
This is because the filter works by sending all content for a filtered site through a proxy if a single element is added .
The filter will be the bottleneck , particularly for large sites , and Conroy knows it , and he 's posturing for a position once this becomes general knowledge.Google are only required to filter , in the way Conroy is now suggesting , in countries like China and perhaps North Korea .
Now Conroy is trying to apply the same rules here .
Luckily Google , with their recent positioning on China , are pushing back .
But , how hard they continue to push back is anyone 's guess .
Perhaps the US will strike a secret deal with Australia that REQUIRES Google to filter content , just like their doing for the sake of the media companies , and music / movie piracy.Its just a simple HTTP blacklist , yes .
But it 's the idea of censorship we should be worried about , and the long-term impact it will have to online commerce .
Not to mention the long term prospect that MORE conservative governments will use the implemented technology for something much worse than what 's suggested now.Both major parties support the idea NOW , and that 's what worries me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But drawing comparisons to China or North Korea is a bit of a stretch Now Conroy wants Google to filter YouTube in Australia [apcmag.com] Conroy himself is drawing comparisons with China without the need for those opposed to Internet Censorship in Australia to do so.The Liberals, with their born-again conservatism in light of their newly appointed leader (Tony Abbott, aka the Mad Monk) support the concept of censoring our 'net.
The concept is flawed, it's not the implementation that we should focus on.
And we have to remember this.
Information is meant to be free, etc etc.The only possible way the Liberals (and the name MUST be capitalised for it to mean exactly who they are - they are by no means liberal, save for a minority faction of the party) will vote against this is if it is seen to be flawed in a technological sense (i.e.
it will slow down our Internet)The aforementioned article shows how Conroy has found through the trials that large sites WILL be slowed down when just one element of the site is added to the blacklist.
This is because the filter works by sending all content for a filtered site through a proxy if a single element is added.
The filter will be the bottleneck, particularly for large sites, and Conroy knows it, and he's posturing for a position once this becomes general knowledge.Google are only required to filter, in the way Conroy is now suggesting, in countries like China and perhaps North Korea.
Now Conroy is trying to apply the same rules here.
Luckily Google, with their recent positioning on China, are pushing back.
But, how hard they continue to push back is anyone's guess.
Perhaps the US will strike a secret deal with Australia that REQUIRES Google to filter content, just like their doing for the sake of the media companies, and music / movie piracy.Its just a simple HTTP blacklist, yes.
But it's the idea of censorship we should be worried about, and the long-term impact it will have to online commerce.
Not to mention the long term prospect that MORE conservative governments will use the implemented technology for something much worse than what's suggested now.Both major parties support the idea NOW, and that's what worries me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31286256</id>
	<title>Re:Elections are coming up...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267205340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>[Tony Abbot's] answer was: "Stopping child pornography is extremely important to me and the Liberal party and therefore, if we can prove the censorship plan doesn't work, we will oppose it; but only it. We will continue to seek effective means to block 'filth' (his word) from entering our country any way we can. If the filter works, we will support it."</p></div><p>Mr. Abbot takes "screenshot or it didn't happen" a little too seriously.<br>Mr. Abbot's efforts would be better spent *capturing* those who sexually assault children.  Attempting to filter the internet such that the pictures of sexually assaulted children don't get *seen* doesn't seem to me to be of any help to the victims here.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>On a side note, the fact that he himself is an extremely religious man probably doesn't help a great deal</p></div><p>Orly?  Ultra-pious people seem also to be the biggest offenders when it comes to illicit sexual endeavors; I wonder if he is overcompensating for something.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ Tony Abbot 's ] answer was : " Stopping child pornography is extremely important to me and the Liberal party and therefore , if we can prove the censorship plan does n't work , we will oppose it ; but only it .
We will continue to seek effective means to block 'filth ' ( his word ) from entering our country any way we can .
If the filter works , we will support it. " Mr .
Abbot takes " screenshot or it did n't happen " a little too seriously.Mr .
Abbot 's efforts would be better spent * capturing * those who sexually assault children .
Attempting to filter the internet such that the pictures of sexually assaulted children do n't get * seen * does n't seem to me to be of any help to the victims here.On a side note , the fact that he himself is an extremely religious man probably does n't help a great dealOrly ?
Ultra-pious people seem also to be the biggest offenders when it comes to illicit sexual endeavors ; I wonder if he is overcompensating for something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[Tony Abbot's] answer was: "Stopping child pornography is extremely important to me and the Liberal party and therefore, if we can prove the censorship plan doesn't work, we will oppose it; but only it.
We will continue to seek effective means to block 'filth' (his word) from entering our country any way we can.
If the filter works, we will support it."Mr.
Abbot takes "screenshot or it didn't happen" a little too seriously.Mr.
Abbot's efforts would be better spent *capturing* those who sexually assault children.
Attempting to filter the internet such that the pictures of sexually assaulted children don't get *seen* doesn't seem to me to be of any help to the victims here.On a side note, the fact that he himself is an extremely religious man probably doesn't help a great dealOrly?
Ultra-pious people seem also to be the biggest offenders when it comes to illicit sexual endeavors; I wonder if he is overcompensating for something.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281494</id>
	<title>Re:Not helpful</title>
	<author>Sasayaki</author>
	<datestamp>1267119300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wise beard man. His words are wise, his face is beard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wise beard man .
His words are wise , his face is beard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wise beard man.
His words are wise, his face is beard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282160</id>
	<title>Re:Not helpful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267127340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If that's the case then it's going to be a shitty fucking century. Time for people who appreciate freedom and liberty to start making lists of the facists. When the dust has settled: those responsible should have to pay for the blood spilled.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If that 's the case then it 's going to be a shitty fucking century .
Time for people who appreciate freedom and liberty to start making lists of the facists .
When the dust has settled : those responsible should have to pay for the blood spilled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If that's the case then it's going to be a shitty fucking century.
Time for people who appreciate freedom and liberty to start making lists of the facists.
When the dust has settled: those responsible should have to pay for the blood spilled.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282756</id>
	<title>Re:Not helpful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267178520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This would eliminate something like 99\% of all child abuse,</p></div></blockquote><p>

This is hyperbole a bit but it has a grain of truth (OK an entire wheat feild of truth) but it's not that high.<br> <br>

The vast majority of child sex attacks in Australia are carried out by people who were close to the victim, had authority over the victim and/or were trusted by the victim (cant remember the actual numbers but it was +80\%). This is what makes it so hard for actual investigators to get convictions, the victim has a vested interest in protecting the attacker. So the attacker is likely to be a family member, close friend or other authority figure such as orphanage directors, religious or educational authorities yet the only one of these that goes through any kind of police check or has any kind of real investigation against them are the teachers.<br> <br>

If you were to suggest we fix the problem by preventing the church from accessing children you would be crucified. Meanwhile the politicians get to ruin the internet for everyone and pretend they are not making the problem worse by burying the real causes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This would eliminate something like 99 \ % of all child abuse , This is hyperbole a bit but it has a grain of truth ( OK an entire wheat feild of truth ) but it 's not that high .
The vast majority of child sex attacks in Australia are carried out by people who were close to the victim , had authority over the victim and/or were trusted by the victim ( cant remember the actual numbers but it was + 80 \ % ) .
This is what makes it so hard for actual investigators to get convictions , the victim has a vested interest in protecting the attacker .
So the attacker is likely to be a family member , close friend or other authority figure such as orphanage directors , religious or educational authorities yet the only one of these that goes through any kind of police check or has any kind of real investigation against them are the teachers .
If you were to suggest we fix the problem by preventing the church from accessing children you would be crucified .
Meanwhile the politicians get to ruin the internet for everyone and pretend they are not making the problem worse by burying the real causes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would eliminate something like 99\% of all child abuse,

This is hyperbole a bit but it has a grain of truth (OK an entire wheat feild of truth) but it's not that high.
The vast majority of child sex attacks in Australia are carried out by people who were close to the victim, had authority over the victim and/or were trusted by the victim (cant remember the actual numbers but it was +80\%).
This is what makes it so hard for actual investigators to get convictions, the victim has a vested interest in protecting the attacker.
So the attacker is likely to be a family member, close friend or other authority figure such as orphanage directors, religious or educational authorities yet the only one of these that goes through any kind of police check or has any kind of real investigation against them are the teachers.
If you were to suggest we fix the problem by preventing the church from accessing children you would be crucified.
Meanwhile the politicians get to ruin the internet for everyone and pretend they are not making the problem worse by burying the real causes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281546</id>
	<title>Re:Elections are coming up...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267119780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, this won't happen. (Disclaimer: I have posted this before, but it's worth restating)</p><p>Tony Abbot (The head of the Liberal party- that's the guys NOT in power, for you Americans) visited humble Darwin city recently and it was there that I personally got to ask him, in his public question and answer time, the following question (roughly remembered):</p><p>"The Internet is an important part of the lives of many young Australians, as well as Australia as a whole in this modern age- what do you think of (the Prime Minister- Americans would say 'president') Kevin Rudd's plan to censor the Internet?"</p><p>His answer began:</p><p>"Well, I'm afraid I'm probably going to disappoint you..." and yes, unfortunately, he did.</p><p>Paraphrased his answer was: "Stopping child pornography is extremely important to me and the Liberal party and therefore, if we can prove the censorship plan doesn't work, we will oppose it; but only it. We will continue to seek effective means to block 'filth' (his word) from entering our country any way we can. If the filter works, we will support it."</p><p>Basically the message I got from his reply is that Tony Abbot believes that the filter will work "well enough" and is too much of a hot potato to oppose politically. The subtext I personally divined from his answer was a little more chilling; that the filter didn't go far *enough* for his tastes, and that he'd personally rather a complete whitelist than a blacklist. Therefore, speaking as a card-carrying Liberal... if you think that voting for the Liberal party in the next election will make the filter go away, you are sadly mistaken.</p><p>On a side note, the fact that he himself is an extremely religious man probably doesn't help a great deal, since it seems that too many politicians tend to "trust God about these things" when it's abundantly clear that God knows sweet F-A about the Tubes and how they work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , this wo n't happen .
( Disclaimer : I have posted this before , but it 's worth restating ) Tony Abbot ( The head of the Liberal party- that 's the guys NOT in power , for you Americans ) visited humble Darwin city recently and it was there that I personally got to ask him , in his public question and answer time , the following question ( roughly remembered ) : " The Internet is an important part of the lives of many young Australians , as well as Australia as a whole in this modern age- what do you think of ( the Prime Minister- Americans would say 'president ' ) Kevin Rudd 's plan to censor the Internet ?
" His answer began : " Well , I 'm afraid I 'm probably going to disappoint you... " and yes , unfortunately , he did.Paraphrased his answer was : " Stopping child pornography is extremely important to me and the Liberal party and therefore , if we can prove the censorship plan does n't work , we will oppose it ; but only it .
We will continue to seek effective means to block 'filth ' ( his word ) from entering our country any way we can .
If the filter works , we will support it .
" Basically the message I got from his reply is that Tony Abbot believes that the filter will work " well enough " and is too much of a hot potato to oppose politically .
The subtext I personally divined from his answer was a little more chilling ; that the filter did n't go far * enough * for his tastes , and that he 'd personally rather a complete whitelist than a blacklist .
Therefore , speaking as a card-carrying Liberal... if you think that voting for the Liberal party in the next election will make the filter go away , you are sadly mistaken.On a side note , the fact that he himself is an extremely religious man probably does n't help a great deal , since it seems that too many politicians tend to " trust God about these things " when it 's abundantly clear that God knows sweet F-A about the Tubes and how they work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, this won't happen.
(Disclaimer: I have posted this before, but it's worth restating)Tony Abbot (The head of the Liberal party- that's the guys NOT in power, for you Americans) visited humble Darwin city recently and it was there that I personally got to ask him, in his public question and answer time, the following question (roughly remembered):"The Internet is an important part of the lives of many young Australians, as well as Australia as a whole in this modern age- what do you think of (the Prime Minister- Americans would say 'president') Kevin Rudd's plan to censor the Internet?
"His answer began:"Well, I'm afraid I'm probably going to disappoint you..." and yes, unfortunately, he did.Paraphrased his answer was: "Stopping child pornography is extremely important to me and the Liberal party and therefore, if we can prove the censorship plan doesn't work, we will oppose it; but only it.
We will continue to seek effective means to block 'filth' (his word) from entering our country any way we can.
If the filter works, we will support it.
"Basically the message I got from his reply is that Tony Abbot believes that the filter will work "well enough" and is too much of a hot potato to oppose politically.
The subtext I personally divined from his answer was a little more chilling; that the filter didn't go far *enough* for his tastes, and that he'd personally rather a complete whitelist than a blacklist.
Therefore, speaking as a card-carrying Liberal... if you think that voting for the Liberal party in the next election will make the filter go away, you are sadly mistaken.On a side note, the fact that he himself is an extremely religious man probably doesn't help a great deal, since it seems that too many politicians tend to "trust God about these things" when it's abundantly clear that God knows sweet F-A about the Tubes and how they work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282718</id>
	<title>Re:humor?</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1267178100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>When I read the headline, I thought the summary would be about how the internet censorship minister accidentally blocked himself from seeing things he wanted to see. Yes, that would be sweet justice and deserving of the "humor" tag. But, the article speaks of something far more nefarious. It should probably be tagged "scary", not "humor". Except that it's kinda funny in a we're fucked kind of way.</p></div></blockquote><p>

At least it wasn't tagged humour, someone might have though it was a joke.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I read the headline , I thought the summary would be about how the internet censorship minister accidentally blocked himself from seeing things he wanted to see .
Yes , that would be sweet justice and deserving of the " humor " tag .
But , the article speaks of something far more nefarious .
It should probably be tagged " scary " , not " humor " .
Except that it 's kinda funny in a we 're fucked kind of way .
At least it was n't tagged humour , someone might have though it was a joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I read the headline, I thought the summary would be about how the internet censorship minister accidentally blocked himself from seeing things he wanted to see.
Yes, that would be sweet justice and deserving of the "humor" tag.
But, the article speaks of something far more nefarious.
It should probably be tagged "scary", not "humor".
Except that it's kinda funny in a we're fucked kind of way.
At least it wasn't tagged humour, someone might have though it was a joke.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281742</id>
	<title>Re:Not helpful</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1267122060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"I'm getting tired of endlessly debating the filter"</i>
<br> <br>
Indeed, it's been going on since the 90's, still no filter and IMHO there never will be. OTOH if I hear you laughing in the streets I will grab my picthfork and join you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'm getting tired of endlessly debating the filter " Indeed , it 's been going on since the 90 's , still no filter and IMHO there never will be .
OTOH if I hear you laughing in the streets I will grab my picthfork and join you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'm getting tired of endlessly debating the filter"
 
Indeed, it's been going on since the 90's, still no filter and IMHO there never will be.
OTOH if I hear you laughing in the streets I will grab my picthfork and join you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281832</id>
	<title>Re:LIES!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267123320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hungry Beast (http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/) did a cross-sectional survey of Australians about the internet censorship. I don't remember the figures exactly, but it was something along the lines of -</p><p>80\% of people want at least some form of internet censorship.<br>93\% of people are worried that about the fact that the blacklist will be secret, and that the current or future government could abuse this.</p><p>So your comment of "It's a very small minority of Australian citizens who want internet censorship" is misinformed. The majority of people who want protection from illegal websites (bestiality, rape, child porn) and are happy for that to be at ISP level. The majority of people disagree with the current approach (lack of accountability on the blacklist).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hungry Beast ( http : //hungrybeast.abc.net.au/ ) did a cross-sectional survey of Australians about the internet censorship .
I do n't remember the figures exactly , but it was something along the lines of -80 \ % of people want at least some form of internet censorship.93 \ % of people are worried that about the fact that the blacklist will be secret , and that the current or future government could abuse this.So your comment of " It 's a very small minority of Australian citizens who want internet censorship " is misinformed .
The majority of people who want protection from illegal websites ( bestiality , rape , child porn ) and are happy for that to be at ISP level .
The majority of people disagree with the current approach ( lack of accountability on the blacklist ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hungry Beast (http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/) did a cross-sectional survey of Australians about the internet censorship.
I don't remember the figures exactly, but it was something along the lines of -80\% of people want at least some form of internet censorship.93\% of people are worried that about the fact that the blacklist will be secret, and that the current or future government could abuse this.So your comment of "It's a very small minority of Australian citizens who want internet censorship" is misinformed.
The majority of people who want protection from illegal websites (bestiality, rape, child porn) and are happy for that to be at ISP level.
The majority of people disagree with the current approach (lack of accountability on the blacklist).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282816</id>
	<title>Re:Elections are coming up...</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1267179180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We will continue to seek effective means to block 'filth' (his word) from entering our country any way we can.</p></div><p> = oh, he is about 240 years too late.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We will continue to seek effective means to block 'filth ' ( his word ) from entering our country any way we can .
= oh , he is about 240 years too late .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We will continue to seek effective means to block 'filth' (his word) from entering our country any way we can.
= oh, he is about 240 years too late.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281426</id>
	<title>New times, same as the old times.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267118280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Those corrupted by power never want to lose their power. If this means disregarding morals, ethics, and standards of any kinds, so be it. It is a plight of the human condition that we are so easily corrupted, and a shame that we haven't seemed to outgrow it, and frankly, I don't believe this race ever will.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those corrupted by power never want to lose their power .
If this means disregarding morals , ethics , and standards of any kinds , so be it .
It is a plight of the human condition that we are so easily corrupted , and a shame that we have n't seemed to outgrow it , and frankly , I do n't believe this race ever will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those corrupted by power never want to lose their power.
If this means disregarding morals, ethics, and standards of any kinds, so be it.
It is a plight of the human condition that we are so easily corrupted, and a shame that we haven't seemed to outgrow it, and frankly, I don't believe this race ever will.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283770</id>
	<title>Wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267192020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yawn. Another anti-Catholic bigot using any opportunity to have a go at the Church.</p><p>Of course the society that you subscribe to (and pay taxes towards) never laid a hand on a child...</p><p>You're also wrong - the vast majority of child abuse occurs within the family - by the father.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yawn .
Another anti-Catholic bigot using any opportunity to have a go at the Church.Of course the society that you subscribe to ( and pay taxes towards ) never laid a hand on a child...You 're also wrong - the vast majority of child abuse occurs within the family - by the father .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yawn.
Another anti-Catholic bigot using any opportunity to have a go at the Church.Of course the society that you subscribe to (and pay taxes towards) never laid a hand on a child...You're also wrong - the vast majority of child abuse occurs within the family - by the father.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281936</id>
	<title>Re:Not helpful</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1267124580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm getting tired of endlessly debating the filter with those who dont understand the wider ethical, moral and technical reasons on why its a bad idea.</p> </div><p>I find it interesting that you seem to think that the reason people disagree with you stems from a lack of understanding.  Have you stopped to think that perhaps a lot of people have stopped to consider the implications, particularly on an issue that is important to them?  Perhaps they simply believe attempting to stop the ability of people to access child pornography is just more important than keeping the internet free.  Maybe they are aware they aren't going to be able to stop everyone, but perhaps they believe raising the barrier is worth the cost?</p><p>Attempting to eliminate A may cost x, y, and z, but did you stop to think that to a lot of people even simply limiting A is worth losing x, y, and z?  Did you consider the possibility that people simply disagree with you?</p><p>If a person disagrees with your principle, your basic premise, you'll never be able to convert them to your side no matter how you explain your opinion.</p><p>This is in fact exactly what we are experiencing in America with health care reform.  The two parties disagree fundamentaly, and it is creating a deadlock.  The majority party seems to believe by simply adding what the minority party wants to their bill it will work out, but they don't consider that a large portion of what the majority party wants to do goes against everything the minority party is all about.  That's an irreconcilable difference, and it has led to the minority party exercising their super-majority option (ordinarily rarely used) on almost every bill the majority tries to pass in order to prevent portions of health care they are opposed to from sneaking into law via the amendment process.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm looking forward to running in the street laughing once the general populace work out what they've signed up for. A big fat "I told you so" from the entire IT industry would be in order.</p></div><p>I hate to tell you this, but I believe the response you'll get from that is a funny look and a "yeah? so?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm getting tired of endlessly debating the filter with those who dont understand the wider ethical , moral and technical reasons on why its a bad idea .
I find it interesting that you seem to think that the reason people disagree with you stems from a lack of understanding .
Have you stopped to think that perhaps a lot of people have stopped to consider the implications , particularly on an issue that is important to them ?
Perhaps they simply believe attempting to stop the ability of people to access child pornography is just more important than keeping the internet free .
Maybe they are aware they are n't going to be able to stop everyone , but perhaps they believe raising the barrier is worth the cost ? Attempting to eliminate A may cost x , y , and z , but did you stop to think that to a lot of people even simply limiting A is worth losing x , y , and z ?
Did you consider the possibility that people simply disagree with you ? If a person disagrees with your principle , your basic premise , you 'll never be able to convert them to your side no matter how you explain your opinion.This is in fact exactly what we are experiencing in America with health care reform .
The two parties disagree fundamentaly , and it is creating a deadlock .
The majority party seems to believe by simply adding what the minority party wants to their bill it will work out , but they do n't consider that a large portion of what the majority party wants to do goes against everything the minority party is all about .
That 's an irreconcilable difference , and it has led to the minority party exercising their super-majority option ( ordinarily rarely used ) on almost every bill the majority tries to pass in order to prevent portions of health care they are opposed to from sneaking into law via the amendment process.I 'm looking forward to running in the street laughing once the general populace work out what they 've signed up for .
A big fat " I told you so " from the entire IT industry would be in order.I hate to tell you this , but I believe the response you 'll get from that is a funny look and a " yeah ?
so ? "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm getting tired of endlessly debating the filter with those who dont understand the wider ethical, moral and technical reasons on why its a bad idea.
I find it interesting that you seem to think that the reason people disagree with you stems from a lack of understanding.
Have you stopped to think that perhaps a lot of people have stopped to consider the implications, particularly on an issue that is important to them?
Perhaps they simply believe attempting to stop the ability of people to access child pornography is just more important than keeping the internet free.
Maybe they are aware they aren't going to be able to stop everyone, but perhaps they believe raising the barrier is worth the cost?Attempting to eliminate A may cost x, y, and z, but did you stop to think that to a lot of people even simply limiting A is worth losing x, y, and z?
Did you consider the possibility that people simply disagree with you?If a person disagrees with your principle, your basic premise, you'll never be able to convert them to your side no matter how you explain your opinion.This is in fact exactly what we are experiencing in America with health care reform.
The two parties disagree fundamentaly, and it is creating a deadlock.
The majority party seems to believe by simply adding what the minority party wants to their bill it will work out, but they don't consider that a large portion of what the majority party wants to do goes against everything the minority party is all about.
That's an irreconcilable difference, and it has led to the minority party exercising their super-majority option (ordinarily rarely used) on almost every bill the majority tries to pass in order to prevent portions of health care they are opposed to from sneaking into law via the amendment process.I'm looking forward to running in the street laughing once the general populace work out what they've signed up for.
A big fat "I told you so" from the entire IT industry would be in order.I hate to tell you this, but I believe the response you'll get from that is a funny look and a "yeah?
so?"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283528</id>
	<title>ISP Filter Beta</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267189080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're completely misunderstanding.  He's testing a new ISP filtering technology that will solve all the technical problems with implementing the filters he is proposing.  When ready he'll release it as open software for the benefit of the whole world.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're completely misunderstanding .
He 's testing a new ISP filtering technology that will solve all the technical problems with implementing the filters he is proposing .
When ready he 'll release it as open software for the benefit of the whole world .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're completely misunderstanding.
He's testing a new ISP filtering technology that will solve all the technical problems with implementing the filters he is proposing.
When ready he'll release it as open software for the benefit of the whole world.
:-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283874</id>
	<title>Re:Is Conroy's Behaviour Evil?</title>
	<author>Mjec</author>
	<datestamp>1267193100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>His website has a tag cloud which shows the most popular search terms on his site.</p><p>He has removed "isp filtering" from the tag cloud to hide its popularity. He hasn't removed any links or documents. All he's done is prevent filtering from appearing as a search term, regardless of how popular it is.</p><p>At the very least it is dishonest because it implies that certain things (e.g. the popular national broadband network) are of greater interst than filtering, even when that may not be the case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>His website has a tag cloud which shows the most popular search terms on his site.He has removed " isp filtering " from the tag cloud to hide its popularity .
He has n't removed any links or documents .
All he 's done is prevent filtering from appearing as a search term , regardless of how popular it is.At the very least it is dishonest because it implies that certain things ( e.g .
the popular national broadband network ) are of greater interst than filtering , even when that may not be the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His website has a tag cloud which shows the most popular search terms on his site.He has removed "isp filtering" from the tag cloud to hide its popularity.
He hasn't removed any links or documents.
All he's done is prevent filtering from appearing as a search term, regardless of how popular it is.At the very least it is dishonest because it implies that certain things (e.g.
the popular national broadband network) are of greater interst than filtering, even when that may not be the case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283386</id>
	<title>Re:Quite a change</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267187040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Australia is still an open and free country, and probably still the country out there that's most similar to the US, culturally and ideologically.</i></p><p>As a Kiwi working in Australia, I have to say that this is absolutely true, and nothing to be proud of.</p><p>The conservative religious streak that Australia practices in politics and public life is over the top, and in addition to the massive racism and jingoism (eg. Cronulla beach riots) it's incredibly off-putting.</p><p>I'm just glad I'm only here temporarily. I look forward to leaving in a few years for a country where they have equal civil rights for gays and lesbians, sympathetic treatment of the indigenous culture and people, R18 video games without censorship, no chance of an internet filter, and some sensible atheist and agnostic politicians.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Australia is still an open and free country , and probably still the country out there that 's most similar to the US , culturally and ideologically.As a Kiwi working in Australia , I have to say that this is absolutely true , and nothing to be proud of.The conservative religious streak that Australia practices in politics and public life is over the top , and in addition to the massive racism and jingoism ( eg .
Cronulla beach riots ) it 's incredibly off-putting.I 'm just glad I 'm only here temporarily .
I look forward to leaving in a few years for a country where they have equal civil rights for gays and lesbians , sympathetic treatment of the indigenous culture and people , R18 video games without censorship , no chance of an internet filter , and some sensible atheist and agnostic politicians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Australia is still an open and free country, and probably still the country out there that's most similar to the US, culturally and ideologically.As a Kiwi working in Australia, I have to say that this is absolutely true, and nothing to be proud of.The conservative religious streak that Australia practices in politics and public life is over the top, and in addition to the massive racism and jingoism (eg.
Cronulla beach riots) it's incredibly off-putting.I'm just glad I'm only here temporarily.
I look forward to leaving in a few years for a country where they have equal civil rights for gays and lesbians, sympathetic treatment of the indigenous culture and people, R18 video games without censorship, no chance of an internet filter, and some sensible atheist and agnostic politicians.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281492</id>
	<title>Going</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267119240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep, I'm sick of this country, I dont have the patience for politicians comparing cock sizes at all levels, local, state and federal. It's just a joke.<br>Going elsewhere with real laws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , I 'm sick of this country , I dont have the patience for politicians comparing cock sizes at all levels , local , state and federal .
It 's just a joke.Going elsewhere with real laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, I'm sick of this country, I dont have the patience for politicians comparing cock sizes at all levels, local, state and federal.
It's just a joke.Going elsewhere with real laws.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281738</id>
	<title>YouJ f4il it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267122060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">Join in especNially practical pIurposes,</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Join in especNially practical pIurposes , [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Join in especNially practical pIurposes, [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281530</id>
	<title>Re:Elections are coming up...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267119660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's federal elections later this year so I imagine the government will be wanting to keep this particular piece of extremely unpopular legislation on the down-low for the rest of the year so that they can do what they did last time and trot it back out after the elections with the statement that they received a mandate from the people to implement it, despite it not actually being a major part of their platform.</p><p>After all, no political party in a supposedly free country would want to start campaigning with something as undemocratic on their books as a secret censorship blacklist run by the government with no judicial oversight and no right of appeal which blocks 'undesireable' content as defined by the government's whim at that particular time of the day. Any competent opposition could make it into a very major issue.</p></div><p>Well it works for the tea baggers and birthers. They dont know sh*t.</p><p>GET YOUR HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's federal elections later this year so I imagine the government will be wanting to keep this particular piece of extremely unpopular legislation on the down-low for the rest of the year so that they can do what they did last time and trot it back out after the elections with the statement that they received a mandate from the people to implement it , despite it not actually being a major part of their platform.After all , no political party in a supposedly free country would want to start campaigning with something as undemocratic on their books as a secret censorship blacklist run by the government with no judicial oversight and no right of appeal which blocks 'undesireable ' content as defined by the government 's whim at that particular time of the day .
Any competent opposition could make it into a very major issue.Well it works for the tea baggers and birthers .
They dont know sh * t.GET YOUR HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's federal elections later this year so I imagine the government will be wanting to keep this particular piece of extremely unpopular legislation on the down-low for the rest of the year so that they can do what they did last time and trot it back out after the elections with the statement that they received a mandate from the people to implement it, despite it not actually being a major part of their platform.After all, no political party in a supposedly free country would want to start campaigning with something as undemocratic on their books as a secret censorship blacklist run by the government with no judicial oversight and no right of appeal which blocks 'undesireable' content as defined by the government's whim at that particular time of the day.
Any competent opposition could make it into a very major issue.Well it works for the tea baggers and birthers.
They dont know sh*t.GET YOUR HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281508</id>
	<title>Re:Elections are coming up...</title>
	<author>Joakal</author>
	<datestamp>1267119480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They can't hide their positions on the <a href="http://shockseat.com/communications/internet-filtering-scheme" title="shockseat.com" rel="nofollow">Internet Filtering Scheme</a> [shockseat.com] </p><p>Some people are watching their promises.
</p><p>Whether people vote for or against parties on the issue is another thing. The site can't tell them who to vote for, but what the party position is, the informed voters still have to make up their mind. The Australian Labor Party did actually make the Internet Filtering Scheme an election promise that they have not yet carried out but are in the process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They ca n't hide their positions on the Internet Filtering Scheme [ shockseat.com ] Some people are watching their promises .
Whether people vote for or against parties on the issue is another thing .
The site ca n't tell them who to vote for , but what the party position is , the informed voters still have to make up their mind .
The Australian Labor Party did actually make the Internet Filtering Scheme an election promise that they have not yet carried out but are in the process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can't hide their positions on the Internet Filtering Scheme [shockseat.com] Some people are watching their promises.
Whether people vote for or against parties on the issue is another thing.
The site can't tell them who to vote for, but what the party position is, the informed voters still have to make up their mind.
The Australian Labor Party did actually make the Internet Filtering Scheme an election promise that they have not yet carried out but are in the process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281544</id>
	<title>Re:Not helpful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267119720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;to any kind of legitimate debate</p><p>Yes, just let me know when there was any kind of debate and I might give your opinion a second thought.</p><p>&gt;or possibility of changing the minds of the people in charge?</p><p>So if he does stupid things, were not supposed to say they are stupid but 'rather unfortunate'?</p><p>I see youve been trained well.</p><p>Ok, roll over now.</p><p>Good boy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; to any kind of legitimate debateYes , just let me know when there was any kind of debate and I might give your opinion a second thought. &gt; or possibility of changing the minds of the people in charge ? So if he does stupid things , were not supposed to say they are stupid but 'rather unfortunate ' ? I see youve been trained well.Ok , roll over now.Good boy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;to any kind of legitimate debateYes, just let me know when there was any kind of debate and I might give your opinion a second thought.&gt;or possibility of changing the minds of the people in charge?So if he does stupid things, were not supposed to say they are stupid but 'rather unfortunate'?I see youve been trained well.Ok, roll over now.Good boy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281598</id>
	<title>LIES!</title>
	<author>scdeimos</author>
	<datestamp>1267120320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, the minister attempting to ram the great firewall of Oz down everyone's throat has been removing all traces of the unpopular legislation from his main website with a javascript filter.</p> </div><p>The summary of this article is a ball-faced lie. The JavaScript in question removes the term "ISP filter" from the tag cloud on the home page of the site, nothing more. </p><p>There are still plenty of pages on the site that mention "ISP Filtering" such as the following:</p><p> <a href="http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media\_releases/2009/115/" title="dbcde.gov.au">Media Release - Measures to improve safety of the internet for families</a> [dbcde.gov.au] </p><p> <a href="http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/speeches/2009/075/" title="dbcde.gov.au">Measures to improve safety of the internet for families</a> [dbcde.gov.au] </p><p> <a href="http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media\_releases/2009/027/" title="dbcde.gov.au">Media Release - Optus to participate in ISP filtering pilot</a> [dbcde.gov.au] </p><p> <a href="http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media\_releases/2009/005/" title="dbcde.gov.au">Media Release - Pilot to assess technical feasibility of ISP filtering</a> [dbcde.gov.au] </p><p> <i>PS: I still think Conroy is an ass-hat. It's a very small minority of Australian citizens who want internet censorship - Kevin Rudd and his government need to remember that they were voted in by the majority. Say "NO" to Kevin in 11!</i> </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Communications Minister Stephen Conroy , the minister attempting to ram the great firewall of Oz down everyone 's throat has been removing all traces of the unpopular legislation from his main website with a javascript filter .
The summary of this article is a ball-faced lie .
The JavaScript in question removes the term " ISP filter " from the tag cloud on the home page of the site , nothing more .
There are still plenty of pages on the site that mention " ISP Filtering " such as the following : Media Release - Measures to improve safety of the internet for families [ dbcde.gov.au ] Measures to improve safety of the internet for families [ dbcde.gov.au ] Media Release - Optus to participate in ISP filtering pilot [ dbcde.gov.au ] Media Release - Pilot to assess technical feasibility of ISP filtering [ dbcde.gov.au ] PS : I still think Conroy is an ass-hat .
It 's a very small minority of Australian citizens who want internet censorship - Kevin Rudd and his government need to remember that they were voted in by the majority .
Say " NO " to Kevin in 11 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, the minister attempting to ram the great firewall of Oz down everyone's throat has been removing all traces of the unpopular legislation from his main website with a javascript filter.
The summary of this article is a ball-faced lie.
The JavaScript in question removes the term "ISP filter" from the tag cloud on the home page of the site, nothing more.
There are still plenty of pages on the site that mention "ISP Filtering" such as the following: Media Release - Measures to improve safety of the internet for families [dbcde.gov.au]  Measures to improve safety of the internet for families [dbcde.gov.au]  Media Release - Optus to participate in ISP filtering pilot [dbcde.gov.au]  Media Release - Pilot to assess technical feasibility of ISP filtering [dbcde.gov.au]  PS: I still think Conroy is an ass-hat.
It's a very small minority of Australian citizens who want internet censorship - Kevin Rudd and his government need to remember that they were voted in by the majority.
Say "NO" to Kevin in 11! 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281424</id>
	<title>National Disgrace</title>
	<author>Anakie</author>
	<datestamp>1267118220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am so embarrassed to be an Australian right now...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am so embarrassed to be an Australian right now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am so embarrassed to be an Australian right now...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281574</id>
	<title>Public opinion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267120080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somebody rings you up or corners you in the street and asks you if you support internet filtering and you say yes so you don't look like a creep but when you get into the polling booth it might be an entirely different situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somebody rings you up or corners you in the street and asks you if you support internet filtering and you say yes so you do n't look like a creep but when you get into the polling booth it might be an entirely different situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somebody rings you up or corners you in the street and asks you if you support internet filtering and you say yes so you don't look like a creep but when you get into the polling booth it might be an entirely different situation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282032</id>
	<title>Re:Is Conroy's Behaviour Evil?</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1267125720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In fact, it doesn't seem to be evil at all. So what's the fuss?</p></div><p>I don't recall anybody calling it evil, where did you see that? I would say it could be called funny, ironic, or fitting.</p><p>I'm also not seeing a "fuss," unless you call a slashdot article a fuss.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact , it does n't seem to be evil at all .
So what 's the fuss ? I do n't recall anybody calling it evil , where did you see that ?
I would say it could be called funny , ironic , or fitting.I 'm also not seeing a " fuss , " unless you call a slashdot article a fuss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact, it doesn't seem to be evil at all.
So what's the fuss?I don't recall anybody calling it evil, where did you see that?
I would say it could be called funny, ironic, or fitting.I'm also not seeing a "fuss," unless you call a slashdot article a fuss.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283312</id>
	<title>Re:Elections are coming up...</title>
	<author>rtb61</author>
	<datestamp>1267185900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> There is a new global political shift, as the left shifted to centre right, it left a major opening for the Green Party. There are not that many people who are interested in the far right and it's singular exposed focus on making the rich richer and the middle class into the working poor. This opportunity is allowing the Green Party to take up the centre left position, leaving the pseudo labour parties stuck sharing the right with the far right, where they will likely do a lot of damage to each, creating the best possible political environment for the growth of centre left Green party.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a new global political shift , as the left shifted to centre right , it left a major opening for the Green Party .
There are not that many people who are interested in the far right and it 's singular exposed focus on making the rich richer and the middle class into the working poor .
This opportunity is allowing the Green Party to take up the centre left position , leaving the pseudo labour parties stuck sharing the right with the far right , where they will likely do a lot of damage to each , creating the best possible political environment for the growth of centre left Green party .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> There is a new global political shift, as the left shifted to centre right, it left a major opening for the Green Party.
There are not that many people who are interested in the far right and it's singular exposed focus on making the rich richer and the middle class into the working poor.
This opportunity is allowing the Green Party to take up the centre left position, leaving the pseudo labour parties stuck sharing the right with the far right, where they will likely do a lot of damage to each, creating the best possible political environment for the growth of centre left Green party.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282206</id>
	<title>Re:Elections are coming up...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267127880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a really ambiguous reason as to why they want some sort of censorship in Australia. The government is not really saying what is going to be impossible to find.</p><p>This makes the government seem like they want to find the uber illicit in the internet culture in Australia. What do they want them to do instead?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a really ambiguous reason as to why they want some sort of censorship in Australia .
The government is not really saying what is going to be impossible to find.This makes the government seem like they want to find the uber illicit in the internet culture in Australia .
What do they want them to do instead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a really ambiguous reason as to why they want some sort of censorship in Australia.
The government is not really saying what is going to be impossible to find.This makes the government seem like they want to find the uber illicit in the internet culture in Australia.
What do they want them to do instead?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281960</id>
	<title>Re:Not helpful</title>
	<author>ridgecritter</author>
	<datestamp>1267124820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"once the general populace work out what they've signed up for."  Unfortunately, the sheeple won't notice or care.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" once the general populace work out what they 've signed up for .
" Unfortunately , the sheeple wo n't notice or care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"once the general populace work out what they've signed up for.
"  Unfortunately, the sheeple won't notice or care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282944</id>
	<title>Re:Quite a change</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267180920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Being in China here, please explain how the HTTP filter here is not circumvented in 5 seconds. Yes, the Chinese also employ IP blocks and occasionally even DNS poisoning, but the circumvention method is still much the same. (With potentially 5 more seconds added in the case of DNS poisoning.)</p><p>2) IANAL, but typically it's much easier to amend laws than to introduce ones. Once the HTTP filter (assuming your theory is correct) is in place, it will be relatively easy to turn it into a more comprehensive filter. Especially as most people won't understand the difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Being in China here , please explain how the HTTP filter here is not circumvented in 5 seconds .
Yes , the Chinese also employ IP blocks and occasionally even DNS poisoning , but the circumvention method is still much the same .
( With potentially 5 more seconds added in the case of DNS poisoning .
) 2 ) IANAL , but typically it 's much easier to amend laws than to introduce ones .
Once the HTTP filter ( assuming your theory is correct ) is in place , it will be relatively easy to turn it into a more comprehensive filter .
Especially as most people wo n't understand the difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Being in China here, please explain how the HTTP filter here is not circumvented in 5 seconds.
Yes, the Chinese also employ IP blocks and occasionally even DNS poisoning, but the circumvention method is still much the same.
(With potentially 5 more seconds added in the case of DNS poisoning.
)2) IANAL, but typically it's much easier to amend laws than to introduce ones.
Once the HTTP filter (assuming your theory is correct) is in place, it will be relatively easy to turn it into a more comprehensive filter.
Especially as most people won't understand the difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281632</id>
	<title>Re:Not helpful</title>
	<author>scdeimos</author>
	<datestamp>1267120740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hear! Hear!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hear !
Hear !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hear!
Hear!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31293190</id>
	<title>censor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267193160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone should pop a cap in his ass and anyone else who try's to play information god.<br>Will kill over someone stepped on shoes but when its needed for world good no ever steps up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone should pop a cap in his ass and anyone else who try 's to play information god.Will kill over someone stepped on shoes but when its needed for world good no ever steps up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone should pop a cap in his ass and anyone else who try's to play information god.Will kill over someone stepped on shoes but when its needed for world good no ever steps up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283648</id>
	<title>Aussie-China</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267190640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are the Aussie's still allowed to speak English or do they have to speak Chinese now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are the Aussie 's still allowed to speak English or do they have to speak Chinese now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are the Aussie's still allowed to speak English or do they have to speak Chinese now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281490</id>
	<title>Re:Not helpful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267119240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm getting tired of endlessly debating the filter with those who dont understand the wider ethical, moral and technical reasons on why its a bad idea. The center piece of their argument is "it stops you downloading childporn from www.kiddytown.com". If you're against that then you're as bad as a child molester. Around and around the argument goes and no matter how many well based points, researched articles or IT professional blogs you gently push them towards, it just comes down to "gotta protect them kids."</p><p>We're tried being nice and polite, no one listens. Either way no one is listening. I'm looking forward to running in the street laughing once the general populace work out what they've signed up for. A big fat "I told you so" from the entire IT industry would be in order.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm getting tired of endlessly debating the filter with those who dont understand the wider ethical , moral and technical reasons on why its a bad idea .
The center piece of their argument is " it stops you downloading childporn from www.kiddytown.com " .
If you 're against that then you 're as bad as a child molester .
Around and around the argument goes and no matter how many well based points , researched articles or IT professional blogs you gently push them towards , it just comes down to " got ta protect them kids .
" We 're tried being nice and polite , no one listens .
Either way no one is listening .
I 'm looking forward to running in the street laughing once the general populace work out what they 've signed up for .
A big fat " I told you so " from the entire IT industry would be in order .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm getting tired of endlessly debating the filter with those who dont understand the wider ethical, moral and technical reasons on why its a bad idea.
The center piece of their argument is "it stops you downloading childporn from www.kiddytown.com".
If you're against that then you're as bad as a child molester.
Around and around the argument goes and no matter how many well based points, researched articles or IT professional blogs you gently push them towards, it just comes down to "gotta protect them kids.
"We're tried being nice and polite, no one listens.
Either way no one is listening.
I'm looking forward to running in the street laughing once the general populace work out what they've signed up for.
A big fat "I told you so" from the entire IT industry would be in order.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281358</id>
	<title>Re:His department also self-censors their email.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267117440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cool, my first First Post. Now for something relevant, the JavaScript uses an static array of terms. They then skip the entry if it's the bad phrase, 'ISP Filtering.' Can anyone think of a better way?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cool , my first First Post .
Now for something relevant , the JavaScript uses an static array of terms .
They then skip the entry if it 's the bad phrase , 'ISP Filtering .
' Can anyone think of a better way ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cool, my first First Post.
Now for something relevant, the JavaScript uses an static array of terms.
They then skip the entry if it's the bad phrase, 'ISP Filtering.
' Can anyone think of a better way?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31284928</id>
	<title>Re:National Disgrace</title>
	<author>ArundelCastle</author>
	<datestamp>1267199280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm Canadian so I'd be willing to feel embarrassed on your behalf, if you ask nicely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm Canadian so I 'd be willing to feel embarrassed on your behalf , if you ask nicely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm Canadian so I'd be willing to feel embarrassed on your behalf, if you ask nicely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281412</id>
	<title>What more proof do you need?</title>
	<author>acehole</author>
	<datestamp>1267118100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They can't be trusted to not use it for political ends. You wont ever hear the words "We've legislated against the filter being used to block political material."</p><p>We're already got the ACL (Australian Christian Lobby) attempting to file its members into the classification board by applying for positions to put their own slant on approvals or most likely disapprovals.</p><p>Every little interest group that wants the particular vice that they're against is already lining up to whisper in the Senator's ear. He's ethically corrupt and making dubious shady decisions. $250 Million for the free to air channels around Australia with no strings attached. I wonder why there is little to no coverage in the main stream press now days?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They ca n't be trusted to not use it for political ends .
You wont ever hear the words " We 've legislated against the filter being used to block political material .
" We 're already got the ACL ( Australian Christian Lobby ) attempting to file its members into the classification board by applying for positions to put their own slant on approvals or most likely disapprovals.Every little interest group that wants the particular vice that they 're against is already lining up to whisper in the Senator 's ear .
He 's ethically corrupt and making dubious shady decisions .
$ 250 Million for the free to air channels around Australia with no strings attached .
I wonder why there is little to no coverage in the main stream press now days ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can't be trusted to not use it for political ends.
You wont ever hear the words "We've legislated against the filter being used to block political material.
"We're already got the ACL (Australian Christian Lobby) attempting to file its members into the classification board by applying for positions to put their own slant on approvals or most likely disapprovals.Every little interest group that wants the particular vice that they're against is already lining up to whisper in the Senator's ear.
He's ethically corrupt and making dubious shady decisions.
$250 Million for the free to air channels around Australia with no strings attached.
I wonder why there is little to no coverage in the main stream press now days?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281826</id>
	<title>Re:Elections are coming up...</title>
	<author>turing\_m</author>
	<datestamp>1267123200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And then I realised where all the funding and authorisation comes from. I just find it... disturbing... that we are all of a sudden getting massive spin coverage on the facebook trolls over death-pages. Again, until I realise that it's the perfect reason to "censor" the internet.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Exactly. Problem-reaction-solution.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And then I realised where all the funding and authorisation comes from .
I just find it... disturbing... that we are all of a sudden getting massive spin coverage on the facebook trolls over death-pages .
Again , until I realise that it 's the perfect reason to " censor " the internet .
Exactly. Problem-reaction-solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then I realised where all the funding and authorisation comes from.
I just find it... disturbing... that we are all of a sudden getting massive spin coverage on the facebook trolls over death-pages.
Again, until I realise that it's the perfect reason to "censor" the internet.
Exactly. Problem-reaction-solution.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283196</id>
	<title>1SP  F1LT3R1NG</title>
	<author>ljwest</author>
	<datestamp>1267184460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>sic!</htmltext>
<tokenext>sic !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sic!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281516</id>
	<title>Ultimate Acai Max</title>
	<author>chisgale</author>
	<datestamp>1267119540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>HEY,, i like your post. and i just want to say. thanks for shearing a nice info..
<a href="http://www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/ultimate-acai-max-review-risk-free-trial-1904682.html" title="articlesbase.com" rel="nofollow">Ultimate Acai Max</a> [articlesbase.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>HEY, , i like your post .
and i just want to say .
thanks for shearing a nice info. . Ultimate Acai Max [ articlesbase.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HEY,, i like your post.
and i just want to say.
thanks for shearing a nice info..
Ultimate Acai Max [articlesbase.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281786</id>
	<title>Re:Quite a change</title>
	<author>Cimexus</author>
	<datestamp>1267122780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't worry<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... we are still like that. Don't confuse a few fringe Senators' ideas with the status quo. Slashdot really gives you a warped view on anything that involves privacy/censorship and countries outside the US. Remember, this 'great filter':</p><p>- Is currently nothing more than a proposal. Not legislation, and not even an actual Bill that's been introduced formally into the House or Senate;<br>- Is clearly being discussed and is a major topic in the news here. People are informed about it and forming their own opinions on it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it's not subversively being shoved down anyone's throat, despite what one or two loony Senators would like;<br>- Is being attempted to be introduced via the normal democratic process<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and failing pretty badly. The Liberal opposition and the Greens are almost certain to prevent it ever passing the Senate;<br>- And finally, even if it gets implemented, it is nothing more than a simple HTTP URL blacklist. Circumvented in about 5 seconds and doesn't do jack to P2P/usenet/IRC/any other protocol.</p><p>This is not to say that the filter is nothing to worry about and shouldn't be fought - it absolutely should be! But drawing comparisons to China or North Korea is a bit of a stretch.</p><p>Australia is still an open and free country, and probably still the country out there that's most similar to the US, culturally and ideologically. Sure there are those that would wish to reduce those freedoms<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but those kind of people exist in the US as well. But both countries have strong, independent legal systems and proper democratic process by which to challenge such things.</p><p>I'm a dual US/AU citizen and travel regularly between the two countries every year. I'm pretty familiar with the news and issues in both countries. Slashdot definitely puts a slant on most of these kind of stories, making things outside the US seem worse than they are. Same applies to their reporting on the UK and other European nations, to an extent.</p><p>Some come down and visit again some time. We won't bite<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry ... we are still like that .
Do n't confuse a few fringe Senators ' ideas with the status quo .
Slashdot really gives you a warped view on anything that involves privacy/censorship and countries outside the US .
Remember , this 'great filter ' : - Is currently nothing more than a proposal .
Not legislation , and not even an actual Bill that 's been introduced formally into the House or Senate ; - Is clearly being discussed and is a major topic in the news here .
People are informed about it and forming their own opinions on it ... it 's not subversively being shoved down anyone 's throat , despite what one or two loony Senators would like ; - Is being attempted to be introduced via the normal democratic process ... and failing pretty badly .
The Liberal opposition and the Greens are almost certain to prevent it ever passing the Senate ; - And finally , even if it gets implemented , it is nothing more than a simple HTTP URL blacklist .
Circumvented in about 5 seconds and does n't do jack to P2P/usenet/IRC/any other protocol.This is not to say that the filter is nothing to worry about and should n't be fought - it absolutely should be !
But drawing comparisons to China or North Korea is a bit of a stretch.Australia is still an open and free country , and probably still the country out there that 's most similar to the US , culturally and ideologically .
Sure there are those that would wish to reduce those freedoms ... but those kind of people exist in the US as well .
But both countries have strong , independent legal systems and proper democratic process by which to challenge such things.I 'm a dual US/AU citizen and travel regularly between the two countries every year .
I 'm pretty familiar with the news and issues in both countries .
Slashdot definitely puts a slant on most of these kind of stories , making things outside the US seem worse than they are .
Same applies to their reporting on the UK and other European nations , to an extent.Some come down and visit again some time .
We wo n't bite : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry ... we are still like that.
Don't confuse a few fringe Senators' ideas with the status quo.
Slashdot really gives you a warped view on anything that involves privacy/censorship and countries outside the US.
Remember, this 'great filter':- Is currently nothing more than a proposal.
Not legislation, and not even an actual Bill that's been introduced formally into the House or Senate;- Is clearly being discussed and is a major topic in the news here.
People are informed about it and forming their own opinions on it ... it's not subversively being shoved down anyone's throat, despite what one or two loony Senators would like;- Is being attempted to be introduced via the normal democratic process ... and failing pretty badly.
The Liberal opposition and the Greens are almost certain to prevent it ever passing the Senate;- And finally, even if it gets implemented, it is nothing more than a simple HTTP URL blacklist.
Circumvented in about 5 seconds and doesn't do jack to P2P/usenet/IRC/any other protocol.This is not to say that the filter is nothing to worry about and shouldn't be fought - it absolutely should be!
But drawing comparisons to China or North Korea is a bit of a stretch.Australia is still an open and free country, and probably still the country out there that's most similar to the US, culturally and ideologically.
Sure there are those that would wish to reduce those freedoms ... but those kind of people exist in the US as well.
But both countries have strong, independent legal systems and proper democratic process by which to challenge such things.I'm a dual US/AU citizen and travel regularly between the two countries every year.
I'm pretty familiar with the news and issues in both countries.
Slashdot definitely puts a slant on most of these kind of stories, making things outside the US seem worse than they are.
Same applies to their reporting on the UK and other European nations, to an extent.Some come down and visit again some time.
We won't bite :P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282394</id>
	<title>Re:Public opinion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267216800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It won't be. People don't like to deal with complexity. They want others to keep what they don't want away. Politicians who promise the simple solutions based on simple world views gain power again and again, even though historically the simple solutions have never worked. That's why the number one argument against censorship against child pornography never gains traction: You tell people: "It won't be used against child pornography. That isn't on public web sites anyway. It will be used against gambling, adult porn, extremist web sites, etc. It is a censorship law." And the answer you get is: "So?" The idea of censorship is nice, you see. Only when the implementation filters stuff that people do want to see do they realize what the problem with censorship is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It wo n't be .
People do n't like to deal with complexity .
They want others to keep what they do n't want away .
Politicians who promise the simple solutions based on simple world views gain power again and again , even though historically the simple solutions have never worked .
That 's why the number one argument against censorship against child pornography never gains traction : You tell people : " It wo n't be used against child pornography .
That is n't on public web sites anyway .
It will be used against gambling , adult porn , extremist web sites , etc .
It is a censorship law .
" And the answer you get is : " So ?
" The idea of censorship is nice , you see .
Only when the implementation filters stuff that people do want to see do they realize what the problem with censorship is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It won't be.
People don't like to deal with complexity.
They want others to keep what they don't want away.
Politicians who promise the simple solutions based on simple world views gain power again and again, even though historically the simple solutions have never worked.
That's why the number one argument against censorship against child pornography never gains traction: You tell people: "It won't be used against child pornography.
That isn't on public web sites anyway.
It will be used against gambling, adult porn, extremist web sites, etc.
It is a censorship law.
" And the answer you get is: "So?
" The idea of censorship is nice, you see.
Only when the implementation filters stuff that people do want to see do they realize what the problem with censorship is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31290140</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1267176600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>$250 Million for the free to air channels around Australia with no strings attached. I wonder why there is little to no coverage in the main stream press now days?</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 250 Million for the free to air channels around Australia with no strings attached .
I wonder why there is little to no coverage in the main stream press now days ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$250 Million for the free to air channels around Australia with no strings attached.
I wonder why there is little to no coverage in the main stream press now days?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283000</id>
	<title>Re:Not helpful</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1267181700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tell them their games, web cam and download may be slower and they will have to may more per month to connect.<br>
Tell them the Conroy is going to take their youtube away.<br>
Make it personal to them.  Tell them the truth about the reality of packet inspection at your average Australian isp.<br>
Narus they are not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell them their games , web cam and download may be slower and they will have to may more per month to connect .
Tell them the Conroy is going to take their youtube away .
Make it personal to them .
Tell them the truth about the reality of packet inspection at your average Australian isp .
Narus they are not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell them their games, web cam and download may be slower and they will have to may more per month to connect.
Tell them the Conroy is going to take their youtube away.
Make it personal to them.
Tell them the truth about the reality of packet inspection at your average Australian isp.
Narus they are not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281310</id>
	<title>His department also self-censors their email.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267116840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Their media releases trip our spam filters. I can't remember the exact rules, but they were the dodgy mail server kind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Their media releases trip our spam filters .
I ca n't remember the exact rules , but they were the dodgy mail server kind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their media releases trip our spam filters.
I can't remember the exact rules, but they were the dodgy mail server kind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281852</id>
	<title>Re:Elections are coming up...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267123560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Any competent opposition</p></div><p>You're not Australian.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any competent oppositionYou 're not Australian .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any competent oppositionYou're not Australian.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282388</id>
	<title>Re:Not helpful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267216560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>When I get involved in these arguments, I like to point out that in fact the vast majority of child abuse in this country has been carried out by members of the clergy, particularly the Catholic church, and that statistically the most effective way of reducing child abuse in this country would be to close all church-run orphanages and missions. </i></p><p><i>This would eliminate something like 99\% of all child abuse</i> </p><p>That's absolutely nuts.  You really think the clergy is responsible for 99\% of child abuse?  They aren't even responsible for 50\%.  The vast majority of abusers are immediate family of the child.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I get involved in these arguments , I like to point out that in fact the vast majority of child abuse in this country has been carried out by members of the clergy , particularly the Catholic church , and that statistically the most effective way of reducing child abuse in this country would be to close all church-run orphanages and missions .
This would eliminate something like 99 \ % of all child abuse That 's absolutely nuts .
You really think the clergy is responsible for 99 \ % of child abuse ?
They are n't even responsible for 50 \ % .
The vast majority of abusers are immediate family of the child .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I get involved in these arguments, I like to point out that in fact the vast majority of child abuse in this country has been carried out by members of the clergy, particularly the Catholic church, and that statistically the most effective way of reducing child abuse in this country would be to close all church-run orphanages and missions.
This would eliminate something like 99\% of all child abuse That's absolutely nuts.
You really think the clergy is responsible for 99\% of child abuse?
They aren't even responsible for 50\%.
The vast majority of abusers are immediate family of the child.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283280</id>
	<title>Re:Elections are coming up...</title>
	<author>ultranova</author>
	<datestamp>1267185420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>After all, no political party in a supposedly free country would want to start campaigning with something as undemocratic on their books as a secret censorship blacklist run by the government with no judicial oversight and no right of appeal which blocks 'undesireable' content as defined by the government's whim at that particular time of the day. Any competent opposition could make it into a very major issue.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Quite a few of them have, actually, and managed to paint their opponents as supporters of child porn / terrorism / boogeyman of the day. And many people, even here on Slashdot, have cheered them on, happy to ensure their children won't be exposed to any material they disagree with.</p><p>I figure we're in for a new dark age. With China rising on the outside and politicians, businessmen and hysterical parents on the inside, all those hard-won freedoms and human rights are going to erode away. It won't last forever, of course: given enough time, the pendulum will swing back and humanity will reclaim what it's losing now; but I doubt any of us will see it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>After all , no political party in a supposedly free country would want to start campaigning with something as undemocratic on their books as a secret censorship blacklist run by the government with no judicial oversight and no right of appeal which blocks 'undesireable ' content as defined by the government 's whim at that particular time of the day .
Any competent opposition could make it into a very major issue .
Quite a few of them have , actually , and managed to paint their opponents as supporters of child porn / terrorism / boogeyman of the day .
And many people , even here on Slashdot , have cheered them on , happy to ensure their children wo n't be exposed to any material they disagree with.I figure we 're in for a new dark age .
With China rising on the outside and politicians , businessmen and hysterical parents on the inside , all those hard-won freedoms and human rights are going to erode away .
It wo n't last forever , of course : given enough time , the pendulum will swing back and humanity will reclaim what it 's losing now ; but I doubt any of us will see it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all, no political party in a supposedly free country would want to start campaigning with something as undemocratic on their books as a secret censorship blacklist run by the government with no judicial oversight and no right of appeal which blocks 'undesireable' content as defined by the government's whim at that particular time of the day.
Any competent opposition could make it into a very major issue.
Quite a few of them have, actually, and managed to paint their opponents as supporters of child porn / terrorism / boogeyman of the day.
And many people, even here on Slashdot, have cheered them on, happy to ensure their children won't be exposed to any material they disagree with.I figure we're in for a new dark age.
With China rising on the outside and politicians, businessmen and hysterical parents on the inside, all those hard-won freedoms and human rights are going to erode away.
It won't last forever, of course: given enough time, the pendulum will swing back and humanity will reclaim what it's losing now; but I doubt any of us will see it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282654</id>
	<title>Re:Quite a change</title>
	<author>qc\_dk</author>
	<datestamp>1267177380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We won't bite<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></div><p>But everything else down there will. And, poison you. Or, sting.
I'm happy right here where the most dangerous animal is the "killer" slug,
that in a fit of rage might go so far as to eat your lettuce.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We wo n't bite : PBut everything else down there will .
And , poison you .
Or , sting .
I 'm happy right here where the most dangerous animal is the " killer " slug , that in a fit of rage might go so far as to eat your lettuce .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We won't bite :PBut everything else down there will.
And, poison you.
Or, sting.
I'm happy right here where the most dangerous animal is the "killer" slug,
that in a fit of rage might go so far as to eat your lettuce.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282556</id>
	<title>Labour</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267176360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does anybody else find it surprising that Labour government is pushing for Internet censorship?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anybody else find it surprising that Labour government is pushing for Internet censorship ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anybody else find it surprising that Labour government is pushing for Internet censorship?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283220</id>
	<title>Citation Needed - and Essential</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1267184700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I like to point out that in fact the vast majority of child abuse in this country has been carried out by members of the clergy, particularly the Catholic church.</i> </p><p>I am not willing to let this one fly on by without a show of proof.</p><p><i> <b>Most child abuse occurs within the family.</b> Risk factors include parental depression or other mental health issues, a parental history of childhood abuse, and domestic violence. Child neglect and mistreatment is also more common in families living in poverty and among parents who are teenagers or are drug or alcohol abusers. Although it is certainly true that child abuse occurs outside the home, most often children are abused by a caregiver or someone they know, not a stranger.</i> <a href="http://www.healthychildren.org/english/safety-prevention/at-home/Pages/What-to-Know-about-Child-Abuse.aspx?nfstatus=401&amp;nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&amp;nfstatusdescription=ERROR\%3A+No+local+token" title="healthychildren.org">What do I need to know about child abuse?</a> [healthychildren.org]<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like to point out that in fact the vast majority of child abuse in this country has been carried out by members of the clergy , particularly the Catholic church .
I am not willing to let this one fly on by without a show of proof .
Most child abuse occurs within the family .
Risk factors include parental depression or other mental health issues , a parental history of childhood abuse , and domestic violence .
Child neglect and mistreatment is also more common in families living in poverty and among parents who are teenagers or are drug or alcohol abusers .
Although it is certainly true that child abuse occurs outside the home , most often children are abused by a caregiver or someone they know , not a stranger .
What do I need to know about child abuse ?
[ healthychildren.org ]  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like to point out that in fact the vast majority of child abuse in this country has been carried out by members of the clergy, particularly the Catholic church.
I am not willing to let this one fly on by without a show of proof.
Most child abuse occurs within the family.
Risk factors include parental depression or other mental health issues, a parental history of childhood abuse, and domestic violence.
Child neglect and mistreatment is also more common in families living in poverty and among parents who are teenagers or are drug or alcohol abusers.
Although it is certainly true that child abuse occurs outside the home, most often children are abused by a caregiver or someone they know, not a stranger.
What do I need to know about child abuse?
[healthychildren.org]
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31295480</id>
	<title>Re:Elections are coming up...</title>
	<author>IchBinEinPenguin</author>
	<datestamp>1267261800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>(* who should definitely join forces to form the Sexy Pirate party)</i>
<br> <br>
They would get totally p0wned by the <em>Nude Ninja Party</em></htmltext>
<tokenext>( * who should definitely join forces to form the Sexy Pirate party ) They would get totally p0wned by the Nude Ninja Party</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(* who should definitely join forces to form the Sexy Pirate party)
 
They would get totally p0wned by the Nude Ninja Party</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282862</id>
	<title>Javascript DRM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267179780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The biggest joke here that he's trying to censor himself using client-side scripts.</p><p>But it does show how the "content-control" people think. They're the ones who try to block right-clicking and text selection. In their ideal world, the "content provider" controls the information right up to the moment it enters the "consumer's" eyeballs, and beyond. The digital age and lossless reproduction of information is their greatest nightmare.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest joke here that he 's trying to censor himself using client-side scripts.But it does show how the " content-control " people think .
They 're the ones who try to block right-clicking and text selection .
In their ideal world , the " content provider " controls the information right up to the moment it enters the " consumer 's " eyeballs , and beyond .
The digital age and lossless reproduction of information is their greatest nightmare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest joke here that he's trying to censor himself using client-side scripts.But it does show how the "content-control" people think.
They're the ones who try to block right-clicking and text selection.
In their ideal world, the "content provider" controls the information right up to the moment it enters the "consumer's" eyeballs, and beyond.
The digital age and lossless reproduction of information is their greatest nightmare.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282276</id>
	<title>what an idiot</title>
	<author>rico13</author>
	<datestamp>1267215060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>he has been marked...</htmltext>
<tokenext>he has been marked.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he has been marked...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282044</id>
	<title>Re:Not helpful</title>
	<author>precariousgray</author>
	<datestamp>1267125840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A big fat "I told you so" from the entire IT industry would be in order.</p></div><p>LOL THOAS DUMB NERDS, I BET THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE ANY KIDS, LOL!  GIT SUM PUSSY!
<br> <br>
(Note: Though I agree with you, this is the likely response.  I'm convinced the only thing a human being truly understands, in this type of situation, is violence.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A big fat " I told you so " from the entire IT industry would be in order.LOL THOAS DUMB NERDS , I BET THEY DO N'T EVEN HAVE ANY KIDS , LOL !
GIT SUM PUSSY !
( Note : Though I agree with you , this is the likely response .
I 'm convinced the only thing a human being truly understands , in this type of situation , is violence .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A big fat "I told you so" from the entire IT industry would be in order.LOL THOAS DUMB NERDS, I BET THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE ANY KIDS, LOL!
GIT SUM PUSSY!
(Note: Though I agree with you, this is the likely response.
I'm convinced the only thing a human being truly understands, in this type of situation, is violence.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281576</id>
	<title>Words can never hurt me</title>
	<author>mister\_playboy</author>
	<datestamp>1267120140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It seems that 'geeks', 'gamers' and 'youths' generally can't seem to understand that when you complain rudely, the powers-that-be aren't going to listen.</p> </div><p>Many of us hear on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. feel that all complaints are ignored by politicians unless they are complaints linked to an politician's income source.  Whether the complaint is kindly worded or not makes absolutely no difference.  Rational discussion appears to have little place in modern politics.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems that 'geeks ' , 'gamers ' and 'youths ' generally ca n't seem to understand that when you complain rudely , the powers-that-be are n't going to listen .
Many of us hear on / .
feel that all complaints are ignored by politicians unless they are complaints linked to an politician 's income source .
Whether the complaint is kindly worded or not makes absolutely no difference .
Rational discussion appears to have little place in modern politics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems that 'geeks', 'gamers' and 'youths' generally can't seem to understand that when you complain rudely, the powers-that-be aren't going to listen.
Many of us hear on /.
feel that all complaints are ignored by politicians unless they are complaints linked to an politician's income source.
Whether the complaint is kindly worded or not makes absolutely no difference.
Rational discussion appears to have little place in modern politics.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31289000</id>
	<title>Re:Quite a change</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1267214580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We won't bite<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></div><p>
No, but your snakes, crocodiles, jellyfish, insects, dingos, and politicians do. Don't get me wrong, Australia sounds like it is an amazing and fun place to visit. But don't be disingenuous, everything tries to kill you down there. =P
<br> <br>
(Except the people).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We wo n't bite : P No , but your snakes , crocodiles , jellyfish , insects , dingos , and politicians do .
Do n't get me wrong , Australia sounds like it is an amazing and fun place to visit .
But do n't be disingenuous , everything tries to kill you down there .
= P ( Except the people ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We won't bite :P
No, but your snakes, crocodiles, jellyfish, insects, dingos, and politicians do.
Don't get me wrong, Australia sounds like it is an amazing and fun place to visit.
But don't be disingenuous, everything tries to kill you down there.
=P
 
(Except the people).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281488</id>
	<title>Re:His department also self-censors their email.</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1267119240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It'd be funny if Conroy put his top secret plans in that static array. Of course accessing them would be illegal hacking by the definition currently used in government here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'd be funny if Conroy put his top secret plans in that static array .
Of course accessing them would be illegal hacking by the definition currently used in government here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'd be funny if Conroy put his top secret plans in that static array.
Of course accessing them would be illegal hacking by the definition currently used in government here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283638</id>
	<title>Straw Man</title>
	<author>BlackHawk-666</author>
	<datestamp>1267190520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once again we see child porn trotted out as a straw man in an argument which is really about getting the ability to arbitrarily censor any material which offends the moral majority or threatens the political power of those currently holding it. Child porn should be as familiar a straw man as terrorism, and it affects about as many people as terrorism.</p><p>If 82\% of all children are molested by friends and family then you can rule out the internet and all it's filth in at least 82\% of all cases.</p><p>"Oh won't somebody think of the children!" I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm going to state that in general it's not "the children" who are downloading and enjoying child porn. Children are being exploited by it, but they're dreaming if they think any filter is going to prevent those images swapping hands. There's altogether too many tech savvy kiddie fiddlers using encrypted systems, hidden partitions, private browsing settings...and...get this...the fracking mail system to simply post a DVD filled with porn straight to their well known "web of trust" kiddie fiddler mates. This filter won't even touch the ones they claim to be stopping - they're already too sophisticated.</p><p>What it will do is stop consenting adults from visiting niche / edge sites to view their particular form of pron, say BDSM for instance. You'll wake up one morning and find you can't look at pictures of women hog tied and spanked pink - because someone out there objects, even though all parties involved were of legal age, consenting adults.</p><p>We have to oppose the filter, because it's like the GST. It took a lot of work on their part to get it in place and set it at 10\% (which they said they wouldn't increase) but once it was legislated it became easy for them to ramp it up from there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once again we see child porn trotted out as a straw man in an argument which is really about getting the ability to arbitrarily censor any material which offends the moral majority or threatens the political power of those currently holding it .
Child porn should be as familiar a straw man as terrorism , and it affects about as many people as terrorism.If 82 \ % of all children are molested by friends and family then you can rule out the internet and all it 's filth in at least 82 \ % of all cases .
" Oh wo n't somebody think of the children !
" I 'm going out on a limb here , but I 'm going to state that in general it 's not " the children " who are downloading and enjoying child porn .
Children are being exploited by it , but they 're dreaming if they think any filter is going to prevent those images swapping hands .
There 's altogether too many tech savvy kiddie fiddlers using encrypted systems , hidden partitions , private browsing settings...and...get this...the fracking mail system to simply post a DVD filled with porn straight to their well known " web of trust " kiddie fiddler mates .
This filter wo n't even touch the ones they claim to be stopping - they 're already too sophisticated.What it will do is stop consenting adults from visiting niche / edge sites to view their particular form of pron , say BDSM for instance .
You 'll wake up one morning and find you ca n't look at pictures of women hog tied and spanked pink - because someone out there objects , even though all parties involved were of legal age , consenting adults.We have to oppose the filter , because it 's like the GST .
It took a lot of work on their part to get it in place and set it at 10 \ % ( which they said they would n't increase ) but once it was legislated it became easy for them to ramp it up from there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once again we see child porn trotted out as a straw man in an argument which is really about getting the ability to arbitrarily censor any material which offends the moral majority or threatens the political power of those currently holding it.
Child porn should be as familiar a straw man as terrorism, and it affects about as many people as terrorism.If 82\% of all children are molested by friends and family then you can rule out the internet and all it's filth in at least 82\% of all cases.
"Oh won't somebody think of the children!
" I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm going to state that in general it's not "the children" who are downloading and enjoying child porn.
Children are being exploited by it, but they're dreaming if they think any filter is going to prevent those images swapping hands.
There's altogether too many tech savvy kiddie fiddlers using encrypted systems, hidden partitions, private browsing settings...and...get this...the fracking mail system to simply post a DVD filled with porn straight to their well known "web of trust" kiddie fiddler mates.
This filter won't even touch the ones they claim to be stopping - they're already too sophisticated.What it will do is stop consenting adults from visiting niche / edge sites to view their particular form of pron, say BDSM for instance.
You'll wake up one morning and find you can't look at pictures of women hog tied and spanked pink - because someone out there objects, even though all parties involved were of legal age, consenting adults.We have to oppose the filter, because it's like the GST.
It took a lot of work on their part to get it in place and set it at 10\% (which they said they wouldn't increase) but once it was legislated it became easy for them to ramp it up from there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281734</id>
	<title>Re:Elections are coming up...</title>
	<author>ghostdoc</author>
	<datestamp>1267122000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the polls that have been performed so far seem to indicate that the 'clean feed' idea behind the legislation goes over very well with the average Aussie voter, and they're not getting the 'geek rage' message that it won't work and will slow down the internet.</p><p>There needs to be a whole load of education to the masses to get across the reality of what they're proposing, and how it can be used in future to censor anything the pollies don't want the public to know about, before there's any real chance of this not going through.</p><p>And don't depend on Mr Abbott and friends to stop it. The Churches are all for it, in fact there's a strong indication that the Clean Feed is a deliberate play to the right-wing church lobby groups.</p><p>Our only hope is the Greens (and the Sex party and Pirate party*) who are the only 'major' political party who have definitely come out against this.</p><p>(* who should definitely join forces to form the Sexy Pirate party)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the polls that have been performed so far seem to indicate that the 'clean feed ' idea behind the legislation goes over very well with the average Aussie voter , and they 're not getting the 'geek rage ' message that it wo n't work and will slow down the internet.There needs to be a whole load of education to the masses to get across the reality of what they 're proposing , and how it can be used in future to censor anything the pollies do n't want the public to know about , before there 's any real chance of this not going through.And do n't depend on Mr Abbott and friends to stop it .
The Churches are all for it , in fact there 's a strong indication that the Clean Feed is a deliberate play to the right-wing church lobby groups.Our only hope is the Greens ( and the Sex party and Pirate party * ) who are the only 'major ' political party who have definitely come out against this .
( * who should definitely join forces to form the Sexy Pirate party )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the polls that have been performed so far seem to indicate that the 'clean feed' idea behind the legislation goes over very well with the average Aussie voter, and they're not getting the 'geek rage' message that it won't work and will slow down the internet.There needs to be a whole load of education to the masses to get across the reality of what they're proposing, and how it can be used in future to censor anything the pollies don't want the public to know about, before there's any real chance of this not going through.And don't depend on Mr Abbott and friends to stop it.
The Churches are all for it, in fact there's a strong indication that the Clean Feed is a deliberate play to the right-wing church lobby groups.Our only hope is the Greens (and the Sex party and Pirate party*) who are the only 'major' political party who have definitely come out against this.
(* who should definitely join forces to form the Sexy Pirate party)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283022</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript DRM</title>
	<author>Aldenissin</author>
	<datestamp>1267181940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The Internet interprets censorship as damage<br>and routes around it." -- John Gilmore</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The Internet interprets censorship as damageand routes around it .
" -- John Gilmore</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The Internet interprets censorship as damageand routes around it.
" -- John Gilmore</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31285216</id>
	<title>There is an easy way out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267201020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While the argument against child pornography is strong, it is not strong enough to strongly constraint approximations of the ideals of free speech.</p><p>Fortunately, there is an easy solution in this case that does not require apathy in the face of child abuse and the dilution of free speech: the government may prepare a blacklist of "dangerous" URLs and this blacklist must not be enforced on the ISP-side but rather on the client-side. Citizens are free to download this blacklist for the utility of their filtering software of choice.</p><p>Problem solved: the government avoids mucking about with free speech while concerned citizens stay away from questionable taste.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While the argument against child pornography is strong , it is not strong enough to strongly constraint approximations of the ideals of free speech.Fortunately , there is an easy solution in this case that does not require apathy in the face of child abuse and the dilution of free speech : the government may prepare a blacklist of " dangerous " URLs and this blacklist must not be enforced on the ISP-side but rather on the client-side .
Citizens are free to download this blacklist for the utility of their filtering software of choice.Problem solved : the government avoids mucking about with free speech while concerned citizens stay away from questionable taste .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the argument against child pornography is strong, it is not strong enough to strongly constraint approximations of the ideals of free speech.Fortunately, there is an easy solution in this case that does not require apathy in the face of child abuse and the dilution of free speech: the government may prepare a blacklist of "dangerous" URLs and this blacklist must not be enforced on the ISP-side but rather on the client-side.
Citizens are free to download this blacklist for the utility of their filtering software of choice.Problem solved: the government avoids mucking about with free speech while concerned citizens stay away from questionable taste.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282528</id>
	<title>Re:Quite a change</title>
	<author>freespac3</author>
	<datestamp>1267175940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Don't worry<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... we are still like that. Don't confuse a few fringe Senators' ideas with the status quo. Slashdot really gives you a warWe won't bite<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></div><p>Our wildlife might though<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry ... we are still like that .
Do n't confuse a few fringe Senators ' ideas with the status quo .
Slashdot really gives you a warWe wo n't bite : POur wildlife might though : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry ... we are still like that.
Don't confuse a few fringe Senators' ideas with the status quo.
Slashdot really gives you a warWe won't bite :POur wildlife might though :P
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31295390</id>
	<title>Re:Not helpful</title>
	<author>SakuraDreams</author>
	<datestamp>1267303680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd like a citation for that. Child abuse is quite common and most of it is perpetrated by relatives or people who know the child well - step father, boyfriend of the teenage mother, uncle, next door neighbour and often camp counselor or teacher. In some cases the mother is responsible. I'm not aware of any statistics which say that the mostly homosexual child abuse perpetrated by priests makes up the majority of cases. It's nice not to like the clergy but it's better not to demonise them without proof.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like a citation for that .
Child abuse is quite common and most of it is perpetrated by relatives or people who know the child well - step father , boyfriend of the teenage mother , uncle , next door neighbour and often camp counselor or teacher .
In some cases the mother is responsible .
I 'm not aware of any statistics which say that the mostly homosexual child abuse perpetrated by priests makes up the majority of cases .
It 's nice not to like the clergy but it 's better not to demonise them without proof .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like a citation for that.
Child abuse is quite common and most of it is perpetrated by relatives or people who know the child well - step father, boyfriend of the teenage mother, uncle, next door neighbour and often camp counselor or teacher.
In some cases the mother is responsible.
I'm not aware of any statistics which say that the mostly homosexual child abuse perpetrated by priests makes up the majority of cases.
It's nice not to like the clergy but it's better not to demonise them without proof.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281444</id>
	<title>Re:Elections are coming up...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267118520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm trying to figure out why we don't see more of it on the standard bullshit news shows.<br> <br>And then I realised where all the funding and authorisation comes from. I just find it... disturbing... that we are all of a sudden getting massive spin coverage on the facebook trolls over death-pages. Again, until I realise that it's the perfect reason to "censor" the internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm trying to figure out why we do n't see more of it on the standard bullshit news shows .
And then I realised where all the funding and authorisation comes from .
I just find it... disturbing... that we are all of a sudden getting massive spin coverage on the facebook trolls over death-pages .
Again , until I realise that it 's the perfect reason to " censor " the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm trying to figure out why we don't see more of it on the standard bullshit news shows.
And then I realised where all the funding and authorisation comes from.
I just find it... disturbing... that we are all of a sudden getting massive spin coverage on the facebook trolls over death-pages.
Again, until I realise that it's the perfect reason to "censor" the internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283926</id>
	<title>Re:How about some alternatives people</title>
	<author>Mjec</author>
	<datestamp>1267193640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you have described is the status quo. ISPs are required to offer a client-side filter at cost price.</p><p>Under the old NetAlert system you could get a filter for free.</p><p>Take-up rates were absurdly low when it was free and remain so today.</p><p>I'll let you draw your own conclusions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you have described is the status quo .
ISPs are required to offer a client-side filter at cost price.Under the old NetAlert system you could get a filter for free.Take-up rates were absurdly low when it was free and remain so today.I 'll let you draw your own conclusions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you have described is the status quo.
ISPs are required to offer a client-side filter at cost price.Under the old NetAlert system you could get a filter for free.Take-up rates were absurdly low when it was free and remain so today.I'll let you draw your own conclusions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31288380</id>
	<title>Re:Not helpful</title>
	<author>delt0r</author>
	<datestamp>1267212300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I smell BS.<p><div class="quote"><p>and that statistically the most effective way of reducing child abuse in this country would be to close all church-run orphanages and missions.....This would eliminate something like 99\% of all child abuse,...</p></div><p>Citation needed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I smell BS.and that statistically the most effective way of reducing child abuse in this country would be to close all church-run orphanages and missions.....This would eliminate something like 99 \ % of all child abuse,...Citation needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I smell BS.and that statistically the most effective way of reducing child abuse in this country would be to close all church-run orphanages and missions.....This would eliminate something like 99\% of all child abuse,...Citation needed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281540</id>
	<title>Re:What more proof do you need?</title>
	<author>mrsurb</author>
	<datestamp>1267119720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even Christians are divided over this, some arguing against this legislation precisely BECAUSE they have unpopular (or potentially unpopular) views which could be silenced through future use of this scheme:  <a href="http://solapanel.org/article/conroys\_internet\_filter\_full\_of\_contradictions/" title="solapanel.org" rel="nofollow">http://solapanel.org/article/conroys\_internet\_filter\_full\_of\_contradictions/</a> [solapanel.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even Christians are divided over this , some arguing against this legislation precisely BECAUSE they have unpopular ( or potentially unpopular ) views which could be silenced through future use of this scheme : http : //solapanel.org/article/conroys \ _internet \ _filter \ _full \ _of \ _contradictions/ [ solapanel.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even Christians are divided over this, some arguing against this legislation precisely BECAUSE they have unpopular (or potentially unpopular) views which could be silenced through future use of this scheme:  http://solapanel.org/article/conroys\_internet\_filter\_full\_of\_contradictions/ [solapanel.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281322</id>
	<title>Not what we want</title>
	<author>rjames13</author>
	<datestamp>1267116900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>We keep on asking for Conroy to shut up but this is not what we meant<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</htmltext>
<tokenext>We keep on asking for Conroy to shut up but this is not what we meant : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We keep on asking for Conroy to shut up but this is not what we meant :(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282652</id>
	<title>One thing to remember</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267177320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The intent of the filter is to block everything that is RC (refused classification)</p><p>http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/framelodgmentattachments/A4DD01BB110AD94DCA25700D002EF73E</p><p>Anti abortion sites have already been black listed, games involving graffiti have been banned. And the Good minister him self has already said the black list may grow very large as sites surrounding bulimia and safe drug use are also put on the block as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The intent of the filter is to block everything that is RC ( refused classification ) http : //www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/framelodgmentattachments/A4DD01BB110AD94DCA25700D002EF73EAnti abortion sites have already been black listed , games involving graffiti have been banned .
And the Good minister him self has already said the black list may grow very large as sites surrounding bulimia and safe drug use are also put on the block as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The intent of the filter is to block everything that is RC (refused classification)http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/framelodgmentattachments/A4DD01BB110AD94DCA25700D002EF73EAnti abortion sites have already been black listed, games involving graffiti have been banned.
And the Good minister him self has already said the black list may grow very large as sites surrounding bulimia and safe drug use are also put on the block as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283332</id>
	<title>Re:Elections are coming up...</title>
	<author>spammeister</author>
	<datestamp>1267186200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe next time I'll just copy and paste this post and beat you to it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe next time I 'll just copy and paste this post and beat you to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe next time I'll just copy and paste this post and beat you to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281584</id>
	<title>Quite a change</title>
	<author>Dorsai65</author>
	<datestamp>1267120200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>from when I was down there (USN) in 1976 -- folks were pretty much left to act like adults and be responsible for themselves. Now the whole country seems more farked up than the U.S., or even Britain!</p><p>Maybe they should start referring to him as Kim Jong Conroy?</p><p>So much for the concepts of "Freedom" and "Democracy" for Oz...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>from when I was down there ( USN ) in 1976 -- folks were pretty much left to act like adults and be responsible for themselves .
Now the whole country seems more farked up than the U.S. , or even Britain ! Maybe they should start referring to him as Kim Jong Conroy ? So much for the concepts of " Freedom " and " Democracy " for Oz.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from when I was down there (USN) in 1976 -- folks were pretty much left to act like adults and be responsible for themselves.
Now the whole country seems more farked up than the U.S., or even Britain!Maybe they should start referring to him as Kim Jong Conroy?So much for the concepts of "Freedom" and "Democracy" for Oz...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31284208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31291056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31295390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31284928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31286256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31288380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31292496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31289000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31295480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0128226_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_0128226.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281490
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281768
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282388
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283770
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283220
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282756
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282514
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31284208
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31288380
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31295390
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281936
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282160
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283000
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282044
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281742
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281960
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281494
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_0128226.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31291056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282394
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_0128226.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281546
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282206
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282816
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282128
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31286256
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281444
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281734
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31295480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_0128226.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281358
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281488
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281484
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281500
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_0128226.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31292496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281870
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_0128226.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281786
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282528
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282944
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283386
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282654
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283252
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31289000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283058
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_0128226.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281322
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_0128226.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283022
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_0128226.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283874
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_0128226.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281832
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_0128226.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31284928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282990
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_0128226.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31283926
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_0128226.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_0128226.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31282718
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_0128226.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0128226.31281318
</commentlist>
</conversation>
