<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_26_1438232</id>
	<title>Key Letter By Descartes Found After 170 Years</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1267197720000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Schiphol writes of a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/books/25descartes.html">long-lost letter by Ren&#233; Descartes to Marin Mersenne</a> that has come to light at Haverford College, in Pennsylvania, where it had lain buried in the archives for more than a century. The discovery could revolutionize our view of one of the 17th-century French philosopher's major works. <i>"[T]housands of treasured documents... vanished from the Institut de France in the mid-1800s, stolen by an Italian mathematician. Among them were 72 letters by Ren&#233; Descartes... Now one of those purloined letters has turned up at a small private college in eastern Pennsylvania... The letter, dated May 27, 1641, concerns the publication of <em>Meditations on First Philosophy</em>, a celebrated work whose use of reason and scientific methods helped to ignite a revolution in thought."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Schiphol writes of a long-lost letter by Ren   Descartes to Marin Mersenne that has come to light at Haverford College , in Pennsylvania , where it had lain buried in the archives for more than a century .
The discovery could revolutionize our view of one of the 17th-century French philosopher 's major works .
" [ T ] housands of treasured documents... vanished from the Institut de France in the mid-1800s , stolen by an Italian mathematician .
Among them were 72 letters by Ren   Descartes... Now one of those purloined letters has turned up at a small private college in eastern Pennsylvania... The letter , dated May 27 , 1641 , concerns the publication of Meditations on First Philosophy , a celebrated work whose use of reason and scientific methods helped to ignite a revolution in thought .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Schiphol writes of a long-lost letter by René Descartes to Marin Mersenne that has come to light at Haverford College, in Pennsylvania, where it had lain buried in the archives for more than a century.
The discovery could revolutionize our view of one of the 17th-century French philosopher's major works.
"[T]housands of treasured documents... vanished from the Institut de France in the mid-1800s, stolen by an Italian mathematician.
Among them were 72 letters by René Descartes... Now one of those purloined letters has turned up at a small private college in eastern Pennsylvania... The letter, dated May 27, 1641, concerns the publication of Meditations on First Philosophy, a celebrated work whose use of reason and scientific methods helped to ignite a revolution in thought.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31289848</id>
	<title>Lost or "lost"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267175100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A big-name chief librarian friend of mine told me once that most "lost" documents are actually documents whose provenance is questionable and the institution is simply waiting for some legal clock to tick (statute of limitations, death of last legal descendant, lapse of insurance claim, etc) before they can be "found".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A big-name chief librarian friend of mine told me once that most " lost " documents are actually documents whose provenance is questionable and the institution is simply waiting for some legal clock to tick ( statute of limitations , death of last legal descendant , lapse of insurance claim , etc ) before they can be " found " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A big-name chief librarian friend of mine told me once that most "lost" documents are actually documents whose provenance is questionable and the institution is simply waiting for some legal clock to tick (statute of limitations, death of last legal descendant, lapse of insurance claim, etc) before they can be "found".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31290518</id>
	<title>Re:I'm confused</title>
	<author>DrgnDancer</author>
	<datestamp>1267178280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like a lot of historical sources, they knew there was a letter, but had no idea what it contained.  This is no uncommon in history and literature.  Maybe they had another letter where Descartes said, "You remember in that last letter, where I told you to make some changes to the manuscript?  Could you also change all the 'e's with funky little squiggles on top to 'e's with triangles on top? Thanks, Rene".  Maybe they had an old catalog entry from the before the theft where a "Descartes letter describing manuscript changes to <i>Meditations on First Philosophy</i>" is mentioned. Maybe they still have the response to the letter, but not this letter.  There are any number of ways that historians can remain aware that a source exists, or existed previously, without having it or knowing any pertinent details of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like a lot of historical sources , they knew there was a letter , but had no idea what it contained .
This is no uncommon in history and literature .
Maybe they had another letter where Descartes said , " You remember in that last letter , where I told you to make some changes to the manuscript ?
Could you also change all the 'e 's with funky little squiggles on top to 'e 's with triangles on top ?
Thanks , Rene " .
Maybe they had an old catalog entry from the before the theft where a " Descartes letter describing manuscript changes to Meditations on First Philosophy " is mentioned .
Maybe they still have the response to the letter , but not this letter .
There are any number of ways that historians can remain aware that a source exists , or existed previously , without having it or knowing any pertinent details of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like a lot of historical sources, they knew there was a letter, but had no idea what it contained.
This is no uncommon in history and literature.
Maybe they had another letter where Descartes said, "You remember in that last letter, where I told you to make some changes to the manuscript?
Could you also change all the 'e's with funky little squiggles on top to 'e's with triangles on top?
Thanks, Rene".
Maybe they had an old catalog entry from the before the theft where a "Descartes letter describing manuscript changes to Meditations on First Philosophy" is mentioned.
Maybe they still have the response to the letter, but not this letter.
There are any number of ways that historians can remain aware that a source exists, or existed previously, without having it or knowing any pertinent details of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31286420</id>
	<title>Re:I'm guessing the letter was: "&#233; "</title>
	<author>Bonewalker</author>
	<datestamp>1267206000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You guys cn lugh ll you wnt, but I hve letter missing from my keybord, nd it mkes life quite difficult, you insensitive clods!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You guys cn lugh ll you wnt , but I hve letter missing from my keybord , nd it mkes life quite difficult , you insensitive clods !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You guys cn lugh ll you wnt, but I hve letter missing from my keybord, nd it mkes life quite difficult, you insensitive clods!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31290812</id>
	<title>Re:meh, philosophy is dead</title>
	<author>Merc248</author>
	<datestamp>1267179720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Though mathematics is useful as a technology in the sciences, its ontological basis is questionable (and therefore, its link to the sciences might be specious at best.)  Note, I'm not questioning the entire enterprise of science as a whole, but I'm simply bringing up the fact that there are real problems with mathematics and science that still require philosophical inquiry.</p><p>Read:</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism\_(mathematics)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism\_(mathematics)</a> [wikipedia.org]<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical\_realism#Mathematical\_realism" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical\_realism#Mathematical\_realism</a> [wikipedia.org]<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism\_(mathematics)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism\_(mathematics)</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Though mathematics is useful as a technology in the sciences , its ontological basis is questionable ( and therefore , its link to the sciences might be specious at best .
) Note , I 'm not questioning the entire enterprise of science as a whole , but I 'm simply bringing up the fact that there are real problems with mathematics and science that still require philosophical inquiry.Read : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism \ _ ( mathematics ) [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical \ _realism # Mathematical \ _realism [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism \ _ ( mathematics ) [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though mathematics is useful as a technology in the sciences, its ontological basis is questionable (and therefore, its link to the sciences might be specious at best.
)  Note, I'm not questioning the entire enterprise of science as a whole, but I'm simply bringing up the fact that there are real problems with mathematics and science that still require philosophical inquiry.Read:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism\_(mathematics) [wikipedia.org]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical\_realism#Mathematical\_realism [wikipedia.org]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism\_(mathematics) [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285606</id>
	<title>DRM violations!</title>
	<author>wisebabo</author>
	<datestamp>1267202760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, couldn't resist.  Actually I guess it should be ARM with the "A" being analog (remember that?).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , could n't resist .
Actually I guess it should be ARM with the " A " being analog ( remember that ?
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, couldn't resist.
Actually I guess it should be ARM with the "A" being analog (remember that?
).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31290026</id>
	<title>Re:meh, philosophy is dead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267176180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, 64K disciplines ought to be enough for anybody.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , 64K disciplines ought to be enough for anybody .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, 64K disciplines ought to be enough for anybody.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31294218</id>
	<title>Re:meh, philosophy is dead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267201380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are assuming the egg and chicken are closely related when that doesn't have to be the case. Dinosaurs came before chickens, and they were hatched from eggs. The "egg" was around long before chickens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are assuming the egg and chicken are closely related when that does n't have to be the case .
Dinosaurs came before chickens , and they were hatched from eggs .
The " egg " was around long before chickens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are assuming the egg and chicken are closely related when that doesn't have to be the case.
Dinosaurs came before chickens, and they were hatched from eggs.
The "egg" was around long before chickens.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31292536</id>
	<title>Re:I'm guessing the letter was: "&#233; "</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267189140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You mean 'opssao'. Since '&#231;' sounds like a written 'ss' in Portuguese. 's' in the middle of a word usually sounds like 'z' in Portuguese. e.g. 'Brasil'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean 'opssao' .
Since '   ' sounds like a written 'ss ' in Portuguese .
's ' in the middle of a word usually sounds like 'z ' in Portuguese .
e.g. 'Brasil' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean 'opssao'.
Since 'ç' sounds like a written 'ss' in Portuguese.
's' in the middle of a word usually sounds like 'z' in Portuguese.
e.g. 'Brasil'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31332064</id>
	<title>The text</title>
	<author>ixache</author>
	<datestamp>1267554900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here you go:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I have found a truly wonderful proof of the existence of God, but the margin of this letter is too narrow to hold it.</p></div><p>:-)</p><p>In all seriousness, here is an excerpt from the letter (with original syntax but modern spelling&mdash;all in all, it is still readily legible even today&mdash;don't know if it meets the "human language requirement, though...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;), as found from TFA<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:</p><p><div class="quote"><p> [Mr Picot] m'a parl&#233; en tels termes du Sieur Petit que cela m'a oblig&#233; d'adoucir ce que j'avais &#233;crit de lui comme vous verrez en la pr&#233;face au lecteur; que je vous envoie pour la faire imprimer s'il vous plait au commencement du livre apr&#232;s l'ep&#238;tre d&#233;dicatoire &#224; Mrs de la Sorbonne et on n'imprimera point la 4e partie du discours de la m&#233;thode ni la petite pr&#233;face que j'avais mise en suite ni aussi celle qui pr&#233;c&#233;dait les objections du Th&#233;ologien mais seulement le Synopsis.</p></div><p>The heart of the matter is that after hearing well of one his opponents (Petit) by some visitors of him in Holland, Descartes has decided to tone down his rhetorics (presumably bitter attacks towards Petit) in his Meditations. He therefore sends this letter with explanations ans instructions to this effect to his good friend Father Mersenne in Paris, who is in charge of printing the book there.</p><p>Hope this helps</p><p>Xavier</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here you go : I have found a truly wonderful proof of the existence of God , but the margin of this letter is too narrow to hold it .
: - ) In all seriousness , here is an excerpt from the letter ( with original syntax but modern spelling    all in all , it is still readily legible even today    do n't know if it meets the " human language requirement , though... ; ) , as found from TFA : [ Mr Picot ] m'a parl   en tels termes du Sieur Petit que cela m'a oblig   d'adoucir ce que j'avais   crit de lui comme vous verrez en la pr   face au lecteur ; que je vous envoie pour la faire imprimer s'il vous plait au commencement du livre apr   s l'ep   tre d   dicatoire   Mrs de la Sorbonne et on n'imprimera point la 4e partie du discours de la m   thode ni la petite pr   face que j'avais mise en suite ni aussi celle qui pr   c   dait les objections du Th   ologien mais seulement le Synopsis.The heart of the matter is that after hearing well of one his opponents ( Petit ) by some visitors of him in Holland , Descartes has decided to tone down his rhetorics ( presumably bitter attacks towards Petit ) in his Meditations .
He therefore sends this letter with explanations ans instructions to this effect to his good friend Father Mersenne in Paris , who is in charge of printing the book there.Hope this helpsXavier</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here you go:I have found a truly wonderful proof of the existence of God, but the margin of this letter is too narrow to hold it.
:-)In all seriousness, here is an excerpt from the letter (with original syntax but modern spelling—all in all, it is still readily legible even today—don't know if it meets the "human language requirement, though... ;), as found from TFA : [Mr Picot] m'a parlé en tels termes du Sieur Petit que cela m'a obligé d'adoucir ce que j'avais écrit de lui comme vous verrez en la préface au lecteur; que je vous envoie pour la faire imprimer s'il vous plait au commencement du livre après l'epître dédicatoire à Mrs de la Sorbonne et on n'imprimera point la 4e partie du discours de la méthode ni la petite préface que j'avais mise en suite ni aussi celle qui précédait les objections du Théologien mais seulement le Synopsis.The heart of the matter is that after hearing well of one his opponents (Petit) by some visitors of him in Holland, Descartes has decided to tone down his rhetorics (presumably bitter attacks towards Petit) in his Meditations.
He therefore sends this letter with explanations ans instructions to this effect to his good friend Father Mersenne in Paris, who is in charge of printing the book there.Hope this helpsXavier
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285662</id>
	<title>Haverford?</title>
	<author>BenEnglishAtHome</author>
	<datestamp>1267203060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The letter was found at Haverford.  Just out of curiosity, what's that school like?  Any grads or current students out there who would like to share?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The letter was found at Haverford .
Just out of curiosity , what 's that school like ?
Any grads or current students out there who would like to share ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The letter was found at Haverford.
Just out of curiosity, what's that school like?
Any grads or current students out there who would like to share?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285922</id>
	<title>Re:It said that Descartes liked turtles.</title>
	<author>LuxMaker</author>
	<datestamp>1267204380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qizNQKzatXA" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">Congress is trying to fence off those turtles.</a> [youtube.com]  How would Descartes feel about this?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Congress is trying to fence off those turtles .
[ youtube.com ] How would Descartes feel about this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congress is trying to fence off those turtles.
[youtube.com]  How would Descartes feel about this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31292802</id>
	<title>Now wait a stinkin minute</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267190760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The author of this article used the word "lie" correctly, as in "had lain", but Slashdot can't get the usage of "its" correctly?  What gives?<br>Now get off my lawn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The author of this article used the word " lie " correctly , as in " had lain " , but Slashdot ca n't get the usage of " its " correctly ?
What gives ? Now get off my lawn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The author of this article used the word "lie" correctly, as in "had lain", but Slashdot can't get the usage of "its" correctly?
What gives?Now get off my lawn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31293928</id>
	<title>Re:meh, philosophy is dead</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267198440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The egg is PART of the newly mutated embryo, and hence also mutated, and so already a 100\%-chicken egg.<br>Did you sleep in biology class?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The egg is PART of the newly mutated embryo , and hence also mutated , and so already a 100 \ % -chicken egg.Did you sleep in biology class ?
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The egg is PART of the newly mutated embryo, and hence also mutated, and so already a 100\%-chicken egg.Did you sleep in biology class?
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288224</id>
	<title>The birth of Optimus Prime</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267211700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Hey Mersenne... I heard things are positive when there is one less than what we can accomplish as two minds... so I'm going solo"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Hey Mersenne... I heard things are positive when there is one less than what we can accomplish as two minds... so I 'm going solo "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Hey Mersenne... I heard things are positive when there is one less than what we can accomplish as two minds... so I'm going solo"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31294086</id>
	<title>Re:I'm guessing the letter was: "&#233; "</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1267199880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What letter is that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What letter is that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What letter is that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31286420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285530</id>
	<title>Could revolutionize?</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1267202400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Too used to the digital age to think right about it. How something know and being somewhat available for 200 years before they were stolen could revolutionize something now because were recovered? I suppose that now that letters will be available both as scanned images, pdfs,  plain text and even google books, but still, if when they were available (and if not well full copies, but at least references could have been made of the critical points) couldn't make a revolution, should have little chance by now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too used to the digital age to think right about it .
How something know and being somewhat available for 200 years before they were stolen could revolutionize something now because were recovered ?
I suppose that now that letters will be available both as scanned images , pdfs , plain text and even google books , but still , if when they were available ( and if not well full copies , but at least references could have been made of the critical points ) could n't make a revolution , should have little chance by now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too used to the digital age to think right about it.
How something know and being somewhat available for 200 years before they were stolen could revolutionize something now because were recovered?
I suppose that now that letters will be available both as scanned images, pdfs,  plain text and even google books, but still, if when they were available (and if not well full copies, but at least references could have been made of the critical points) couldn't make a revolution, should have little chance by now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31291116</id>
	<title>Re:meh, philosophy is dead</title>
	<author>Kismet</author>
	<datestamp>1267181340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&lt;quote&gt;Historically is was a place for science and mathmatics. Since those disciplines now have there own fields, what the hell good is philosphy?&lt;/quote&gt;<br><br>Well, philosophy is about discovering the nature of being and the nature of knowledge. What is reality? How reliable is a given predicate or assertion? How can we say that something is "true" or "false"? For any given axiom, must it obey its own rule (suggesting an even more fundamental axiom), or will it exclude itself (hence a contradiction...)? Is there a fundamental and universal truth?<br><br>Philosophy is incredibly useful. It allowed the scientific method to be based on empiricism and mathematics to remain in abstractions. It brought much order and reason to theology and government. Philosophy contemplates things like Rights, which are foreign to math and science. Philosophy considers how diverse and seemingly unrelated phenomena can interact to produce unities. With philosophy, we can begin to explore how the mind senses meaning and significance in things. Philosophy influences disciplines as modern as computer programming, where logic and good ontological representations are important in crafting useful software.<br><br>Always (it seems to me) there will be arrogant people who suppose that the universal truth has been found. They will point to some shaky and tenuous axiom as evidence for their superior enlightenment. In past eras, we expected such people to emerge from the various religious facets of society. Primitive society hadn't developed any other source of knowledge.<br><br>Today's True Believers come increasingly from the secular religion of Scientism in which certain scientific discoveries are subconsciously combined with other invisible values in order to "answer" the hard questions and thus create a system of ethics, morality, etc. What these True Believers don't see (and therefore rarely examine) is their own way of assigning meaning and value to the things they claim are significant and real.  They often call themselves "skeptics," yet they stop examining their own beliefs.<br><br>There are tell-tale signs of these deluded souls: They say things like "the most basic philosophical questions have been answered," or they constantly need to cite studies (that they didn't conduct), or they have a list of "red flags" indicating when something should be doubted, or they profess allegiance to one system of epistemology (evidentialists, typically) even though they usually don't know what epistemology is, or they have a tendency to scoff and ridicule, or they like to rattle on about the primacy of critical thinking... They are dogmatists, just like those they despise; and they go about shaping the world in their own image.<br><br>I digressed into a bit of a rant there, but I mean to say with all of this that philosophy is as important today as it ever was.  We haven't answered any of the hard questions yet, but we have found some good heuristics along the way.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Historically is was a place for science and mathmatics .
Since those disciplines now have there own fields , what the hell good is philosphy ? Well , philosophy is about discovering the nature of being and the nature of knowledge .
What is reality ?
How reliable is a given predicate or assertion ?
How can we say that something is " true " or " false " ?
For any given axiom , must it obey its own rule ( suggesting an even more fundamental axiom ) , or will it exclude itself ( hence a contradiction... ) ?
Is there a fundamental and universal truth ? Philosophy is incredibly useful .
It allowed the scientific method to be based on empiricism and mathematics to remain in abstractions .
It brought much order and reason to theology and government .
Philosophy contemplates things like Rights , which are foreign to math and science .
Philosophy considers how diverse and seemingly unrelated phenomena can interact to produce unities .
With philosophy , we can begin to explore how the mind senses meaning and significance in things .
Philosophy influences disciplines as modern as computer programming , where logic and good ontological representations are important in crafting useful software.Always ( it seems to me ) there will be arrogant people who suppose that the universal truth has been found .
They will point to some shaky and tenuous axiom as evidence for their superior enlightenment .
In past eras , we expected such people to emerge from the various religious facets of society .
Primitive society had n't developed any other source of knowledge.Today 's True Believers come increasingly from the secular religion of Scientism in which certain scientific discoveries are subconsciously combined with other invisible values in order to " answer " the hard questions and thus create a system of ethics , morality , etc .
What these True Believers do n't see ( and therefore rarely examine ) is their own way of assigning meaning and value to the things they claim are significant and real .
They often call themselves " skeptics , " yet they stop examining their own beliefs.There are tell-tale signs of these deluded souls : They say things like " the most basic philosophical questions have been answered , " or they constantly need to cite studies ( that they did n't conduct ) , or they have a list of " red flags " indicating when something should be doubted , or they profess allegiance to one system of epistemology ( evidentialists , typically ) even though they usually do n't know what epistemology is , or they have a tendency to scoff and ridicule , or they like to rattle on about the primacy of critical thinking... They are dogmatists , just like those they despise ; and they go about shaping the world in their own image.I digressed into a bit of a rant there , but I mean to say with all of this that philosophy is as important today as it ever was .
We have n't answered any of the hard questions yet , but we have found some good heuristics along the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Historically is was a place for science and mathmatics.
Since those disciplines now have there own fields, what the hell good is philosphy?Well, philosophy is about discovering the nature of being and the nature of knowledge.
What is reality?
How reliable is a given predicate or assertion?
How can we say that something is "true" or "false"?
For any given axiom, must it obey its own rule (suggesting an even more fundamental axiom), or will it exclude itself (hence a contradiction...)?
Is there a fundamental and universal truth?Philosophy is incredibly useful.
It allowed the scientific method to be based on empiricism and mathematics to remain in abstractions.
It brought much order and reason to theology and government.
Philosophy contemplates things like Rights, which are foreign to math and science.
Philosophy considers how diverse and seemingly unrelated phenomena can interact to produce unities.
With philosophy, we can begin to explore how the mind senses meaning and significance in things.
Philosophy influences disciplines as modern as computer programming, where logic and good ontological representations are important in crafting useful software.Always (it seems to me) there will be arrogant people who suppose that the universal truth has been found.
They will point to some shaky and tenuous axiom as evidence for their superior enlightenment.
In past eras, we expected such people to emerge from the various religious facets of society.
Primitive society hadn't developed any other source of knowledge.Today's True Believers come increasingly from the secular religion of Scientism in which certain scientific discoveries are subconsciously combined with other invisible values in order to "answer" the hard questions and thus create a system of ethics, morality, etc.
What these True Believers don't see (and therefore rarely examine) is their own way of assigning meaning and value to the things they claim are significant and real.
They often call themselves "skeptics," yet they stop examining their own beliefs.There are tell-tale signs of these deluded souls: They say things like "the most basic philosophical questions have been answered," or they constantly need to cite studies (that they didn't conduct), or they have a list of "red flags" indicating when something should be doubted, or they profess allegiance to one system of epistemology (evidentialists, typically) even though they usually don't know what epistemology is, or they have a tendency to scoff and ridicule, or they like to rattle on about the primacy of critical thinking... They are dogmatists, just like those they despise; and they go about shaping the world in their own image.I digressed into a bit of a rant there, but I mean to say with all of this that philosophy is as important today as it ever was.
We haven't answered any of the hard questions yet, but we have found some good heuristics along the way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31289496</id>
	<title>Re:meh, philosophy is dead</title>
	<author>FooRat</author>
	<datestamp>1267216620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Was that a lousy attempt a humor or a lousy attempt at a troll? I can't quite tell, but you certainly aren't making any serious points about philosophy; every one of your points is absurdly bizarre.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was that a lousy attempt a humor or a lousy attempt at a troll ?
I ca n't quite tell , but you certainly are n't making any serious points about philosophy ; every one of your points is absurdly bizarre .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was that a lousy attempt a humor or a lousy attempt at a troll?
I can't quite tell, but you certainly aren't making any serious points about philosophy; every one of your points is absurdly bizarre.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288240</id>
	<title>Re:I'm guessing the letter was: "&#233; "</title>
	<author>Ihmhi</author>
	<datestamp>1267211760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>&#231;</p></div><p>I've never understood the need for this letter, at least the way it is used in Portuguese. There is a restaurant nearby my home called Caf&#233; Op&#231;ao. It's pronounced "ohp-SAO". It's a bloody S! Why don't you just put a bloody S there?!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>  I 've never understood the need for this letter , at least the way it is used in Portuguese .
There is a restaurant nearby my home called Caf   Op   ao .
It 's pronounced " ohp-SAO " .
It 's a bloody S !
Why do n't you just put a bloody S there ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>çI've never understood the need for this letter, at least the way it is used in Portuguese.
There is a restaurant nearby my home called Café Opçao.
It's pronounced "ohp-SAO".
It's a bloody S!
Why don't you just put a bloody S there?
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285520</id>
	<title>heresy</title>
	<author>rarel</author>
	<datestamp>1267202400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interestingly this comes just a few days after I read an article supporting the theory that Descartes was actually assassinated for his controversial views and his influence on Queen Christina of Sweden, by his own priest to boot.<p>
 (in french)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interestingly this comes just a few days after I read an article supporting the theory that Descartes was actually assassinated for his controversial views and his influence on Queen Christina of Sweden , by his own priest to boot .
( in french )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interestingly this comes just a few days after I read an article supporting the theory that Descartes was actually assassinated for his controversial views and his influence on Queen Christina of Sweden, by his own priest to boot.
(in french)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285604</id>
	<title>Re:So</title>
	<author>SpeedyDX</author>
	<datestamp>1267202760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which text? Text of the letter? TFA says that "the letter would be published in a collection later this year."</p><p>As for the Meditations, Dr. Jonathan Bennett does a wonderful job of translating early modern works into modern English so that they're more clear and accessible. Here are the Meditations: <a href="http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/de.html" title="earlymoderntexts.com">http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/de.html</a> [earlymoderntexts.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which text ?
Text of the letter ?
TFA says that " the letter would be published in a collection later this year .
" As for the Meditations , Dr. Jonathan Bennett does a wonderful job of translating early modern works into modern English so that they 're more clear and accessible .
Here are the Meditations : http : //www.earlymoderntexts.com/de.html [ earlymoderntexts.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which text?
Text of the letter?
TFA says that "the letter would be published in a collection later this year.
"As for the Meditations, Dr. Jonathan Bennett does a wonderful job of translating early modern works into modern English so that they're more clear and accessible.
Here are the Meditations: http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/de.html [earlymoderntexts.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285954</id>
	<title>Re:So</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1267204500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He declared war on them, they rubberstamped "we surrender" beneath... Ya know how this works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He declared war on them , they rubberstamped " we surrender " beneath... Ya know how this works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He declared war on them, they rubberstamped "we surrender" beneath... Ya know how this works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31286572</id>
	<title>Re:Meditations on First Philosophy</title>
	<author>spiffmastercow</author>
	<datestamp>1267206360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, it was med #2, and he never actually said "I think, therefore I am" in that work, though it sumarizes his point.  He declared it not as a conditional statement, but rather as an axiom.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it was med # 2 , and he never actually said " I think , therefore I am " in that work , though it sumarizes his point .
He declared it not as a conditional statement , but rather as an axiom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it was med #2, and he never actually said "I think, therefore I am" in that work, though it sumarizes his point.
He declared it not as a conditional statement, but rather as an axiom.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288194</id>
	<title>Re:Meditations on First Philosophy</title>
	<author>SAN1701</author>
	<datestamp>1267211580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, I felt the same way. <br> <br>

Reminds me of Einstein. Both of them made huge discoveries that ended up scaring them. Einstein negated quantum mechanics (which his works helped create), and even came with a "cosmological constant" when he saw his equations couldn't contemplate a peaceful, organized space in which he (and the rest of the world) believed at that time. Descartes have made such a gigantic leap in thinking, came to the aforementioned conclusion, that even he got scared with the implications and then came with some half-baked "proof" on the existence of God to find some relief.<br> <br>
I don't blame them. They were intellectual giants, but men nevertheless. Men that can be afraid of schocking discoveries, even if they came from their own, powerful, minds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I felt the same way .
Reminds me of Einstein .
Both of them made huge discoveries that ended up scaring them .
Einstein negated quantum mechanics ( which his works helped create ) , and even came with a " cosmological constant " when he saw his equations could n't contemplate a peaceful , organized space in which he ( and the rest of the world ) believed at that time .
Descartes have made such a gigantic leap in thinking , came to the aforementioned conclusion , that even he got scared with the implications and then came with some half-baked " proof " on the existence of God to find some relief .
I do n't blame them .
They were intellectual giants , but men nevertheless .
Men that can be afraid of schocking discoveries , even if they came from their own , powerful , minds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I felt the same way.
Reminds me of Einstein.
Both of them made huge discoveries that ended up scaring them.
Einstein negated quantum mechanics (which his works helped create), and even came with a "cosmological constant" when he saw his equations couldn't contemplate a peaceful, organized space in which he (and the rest of the world) believed at that time.
Descartes have made such a gigantic leap in thinking, came to the aforementioned conclusion, that even he got scared with the implications and then came with some half-baked "proof" on the existence of God to find some relief.
I don't blame them.
They were intellectual giants, but men nevertheless.
Men that can be afraid of schocking discoveries, even if they came from their own, powerful, minds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31286438</id>
	<title>Dear Marin</title>
	<author>goffster</author>
	<datestamp>1267206000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I still can't get laid at the local bars, maybe I should stop talking about Math.<br>Perhaps astrology might work better.   Do you have any good charts?</p><p>Thanx,<br>Rene</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I still ca n't get laid at the local bars , maybe I should stop talking about Math.Perhaps astrology might work better .
Do you have any good charts ? Thanx,Rene</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still can't get laid at the local bars, maybe I should stop talking about Math.Perhaps astrology might work better.
Do you have any good charts?Thanx,Rene</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31291540</id>
	<title>Re:meh, philosophy is dead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267183860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Which came first, chicken or the egg?"</p><p>Trick question!</p><p>The correct answer is: The rooster</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Which came first , chicken or the egg ?
" Trick question ! The correct answer is : The rooster</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Which came first, chicken or the egg?
"Trick question!The correct answer is: The rooster</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31289340</id>
	<title>Re:meh, philosophy is dead</title>
	<author>fullymodo</author>
	<datestamp>1267215900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Doesn't an egg that contains a 100\%-chicken count as the <strong>definition</strong> of a chicken egg?<br>
Does the "chicken-ness" of the egg derive from the egg-layer or from the embryo within?
<br>
<br>

(Oh, and 'meh' is a philosophy unto itself.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't an egg that contains a 100 \ % -chicken count as the definition of a chicken egg ?
Does the " chicken-ness " of the egg derive from the egg-layer or from the embryo within ?
( Oh , and 'meh ' is a philosophy unto itself .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't an egg that contains a 100\%-chicken count as the definition of a chicken egg?
Does the "chicken-ness" of the egg derive from the egg-layer or from the embryo within?
(Oh, and 'meh' is a philosophy unto itself.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31286800</id>
	<title>Re:heresy</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1267207080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, he got assassinated in French?!? That's much worse than getting assassinated in English! Oh wait, the \_article\_ was in French? Never mind!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , he got assassinated in French ? ! ?
That 's much worse than getting assassinated in English !
Oh wait , the \ _article \ _ was in French ?
Never mind !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, he got assassinated in French?!?
That's much worse than getting assassinated in English!
Oh wait, the \_article\_ was in French?
Never mind!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285754</id>
	<title>Re:Meditations on First Philosophy</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1267203540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think, therefore I am. I am, therfore (I think...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think , therefore I am .
I am , therfore ( I think... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think, therefore I am.
I am, therfore (I think...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285768</id>
	<title>Re:Meditations on First Philosophy</title>
	<author>Issarlk</author>
	<datestamp>1267203540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"I think therefore I am" sounds a bit bold an affirmation.
It's more like "I think I think, therefore I think I think I think" IMHO.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I think therefore I am " sounds a bit bold an affirmation .
It 's more like " I think I think , therefore I think I think I think " IMHO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I think therefore I am" sounds a bit bold an affirmation.
It's more like "I think I think, therefore I think I think I think" IMHO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31293142</id>
	<title>Re:I'm guessing the letter was: "&#233; "</title>
	<author>quarterbuck</author>
	<datestamp>1267192800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is pronounced differently in Catalan, not sure about Portuguese. <br>
The Catalan pronunciation of Barcelona sounds more like Barthelona or  Barssalona than Barsalona. I think the &#231; symbol was invented by a man with a lisp.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is pronounced differently in Catalan , not sure about Portuguese .
The Catalan pronunciation of Barcelona sounds more like Barthelona or Barssalona than Barsalona .
I think the   symbol was invented by a man with a lisp .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is pronounced differently in Catalan, not sure about Portuguese.
The Catalan pronunciation of Barcelona sounds more like Barthelona or  Barssalona than Barsalona.
I think the ç symbol was invented by a man with a lisp.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287888</id>
	<title>meh, philosophy is dead</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1267210680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Historically is was a place for science and mathmatics. Since those disciplines now have there own fields, what the hell good is philosphy?</p><p>Before someone responds with the boring and done arguments, my initial goal in college was to become a philosophy professor. It was then I realized it ahs nothing new to offer the world. Even the most basic philosophy question have been answered.</p><p>Which came first, chicken or the egg? Evolution has taught is it was the egg.</p><p>If yopu walk towards something, but only half the remaining difference, will you ever get there: Quantum mechanics has shown us that, yes, we would get there because there is a smallest distance that can be moved.</p><p>These may be interesting papers because they come from a time when philosophy was critical to develop logical, rational, and skeptical questions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Historically is was a place for science and mathmatics .
Since those disciplines now have there own fields , what the hell good is philosphy ? Before someone responds with the boring and done arguments , my initial goal in college was to become a philosophy professor .
It was then I realized it ahs nothing new to offer the world .
Even the most basic philosophy question have been answered.Which came first , chicken or the egg ?
Evolution has taught is it was the egg.If yopu walk towards something , but only half the remaining difference , will you ever get there : Quantum mechanics has shown us that , yes , we would get there because there is a smallest distance that can be moved.These may be interesting papers because they come from a time when philosophy was critical to develop logical , rational , and skeptical questions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Historically is was a place for science and mathmatics.
Since those disciplines now have there own fields, what the hell good is philosphy?Before someone responds with the boring and done arguments, my initial goal in college was to become a philosophy professor.
It was then I realized it ahs nothing new to offer the world.
Even the most basic philosophy question have been answered.Which came first, chicken or the egg?
Evolution has taught is it was the egg.If yopu walk towards something, but only half the remaining difference, will you ever get there: Quantum mechanics has shown us that, yes, we would get there because there is a smallest distance that can be moved.These may be interesting papers because they come from a time when philosophy was critical to develop logical, rational, and skeptical questions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31289614</id>
	<title>Re:meh, philosophy is dead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267217220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure that the almost-chicken also came out of an egg (although not a chicken egg) and thus the egg came before any chicken.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure that the almost-chicken also came out of an egg ( although not a chicken egg ) and thus the egg came before any chicken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure that the almost-chicken also came out of an egg (although not a chicken egg) and thus the egg came before any chicken.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287072</id>
	<title>My claim to fame...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267207920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My son was baptized in the same church Descartes (aka Cartesius) was buried.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>My son was baptized in the same church Descartes ( aka Cartesius ) was buried .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My son was baptized in the same church Descartes (aka Cartesius) was buried.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31291428</id>
	<title>Re:meh, philosophy is dead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267183140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The question does not specify a chicken's egg. Just an egg.</p><p>Which renders the question rather banal.</p><p>But for what it's worth:</p><p>A chicken is lying in bed, with tousled feathers. Next to her, an egg lights up a cigarette, takes a puff, and says, "Well, I think we've finally answered that!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The question does not specify a chicken 's egg .
Just an egg.Which renders the question rather banal.But for what it 's worth : A chicken is lying in bed , with tousled feathers .
Next to her , an egg lights up a cigarette , takes a puff , and says , " Well , I think we 've finally answered that !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question does not specify a chicken's egg.
Just an egg.Which renders the question rather banal.But for what it's worth:A chicken is lying in bed, with tousled feathers.
Next to her, an egg lights up a cigarette, takes a puff, and says, "Well, I think we've finally answered that!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31286682</id>
	<title>Re:Haverford?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267206780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm currently a junior at Haverford College, majoring in Computer Science with possible minors in Physics and/or Astronomy (depending on how the rest of my time here works out).</p><p>It's definitely a small school -- 1200 kids or so -- but I've found this to be quite beneficial. I'll frequently walk in on CS department meetings (unknowingly; it's just the three professors meeting in an office) and they'll ask for input on what classes they should offer in the next few semesters. I couldn't imagine this individual attention existing at a larger institution.</p><p>Haverford's Quaker roots also lend it a sense of strong community and positive social involvement. It is not officially affiliated with the Quakers any longer, but certain traditions still exist: consensus on any group decision, moments of silence before serious discussion, etc. My older brother, a graduate from another Northeastern Liberal Arts College, most notably was surprised at "how nice everyone at your school is."</p><p>All in all, a wonderful place. Very happy I go there, and sad to be leaving it soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm currently a junior at Haverford College , majoring in Computer Science with possible minors in Physics and/or Astronomy ( depending on how the rest of my time here works out ) .It 's definitely a small school -- 1200 kids or so -- but I 've found this to be quite beneficial .
I 'll frequently walk in on CS department meetings ( unknowingly ; it 's just the three professors meeting in an office ) and they 'll ask for input on what classes they should offer in the next few semesters .
I could n't imagine this individual attention existing at a larger institution.Haverford 's Quaker roots also lend it a sense of strong community and positive social involvement .
It is not officially affiliated with the Quakers any longer , but certain traditions still exist : consensus on any group decision , moments of silence before serious discussion , etc .
My older brother , a graduate from another Northeastern Liberal Arts College , most notably was surprised at " how nice everyone at your school is .
" All in all , a wonderful place .
Very happy I go there , and sad to be leaving it soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm currently a junior at Haverford College, majoring in Computer Science with possible minors in Physics and/or Astronomy (depending on how the rest of my time here works out).It's definitely a small school -- 1200 kids or so -- but I've found this to be quite beneficial.
I'll frequently walk in on CS department meetings (unknowingly; it's just the three professors meeting in an office) and they'll ask for input on what classes they should offer in the next few semesters.
I couldn't imagine this individual attention existing at a larger institution.Haverford's Quaker roots also lend it a sense of strong community and positive social involvement.
It is not officially affiliated with the Quakers any longer, but certain traditions still exist: consensus on any group decision, moments of silence before serious discussion, etc.
My older brother, a graduate from another Northeastern Liberal Arts College, most notably was surprised at "how nice everyone at your school is.
"All in all, a wonderful place.
Very happy I go there, and sad to be leaving it soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285410</id>
	<title>Meditations on First Philosophy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267201860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chapter 1 was great, and ended in the pinnacle of the work "I think therefore I am".</p><p>After that, he couldn't go any farther, so he decided that you couldn't trust the world without the presence of God. At which point, I lost interest.</p><p>Chapter 1: A+<br>Chapter &gt;1: D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chapter 1 was great , and ended in the pinnacle of the work " I think therefore I am " .After that , he could n't go any farther , so he decided that you could n't trust the world without the presence of God .
At which point , I lost interest.Chapter 1 : A + Chapter &gt; 1 : D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chapter 1 was great, and ended in the pinnacle of the work "I think therefore I am".After that, he couldn't go any farther, so he decided that you couldn't trust the world without the presence of God.
At which point, I lost interest.Chapter 1: A+Chapter &gt;1: D</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31286426</id>
	<title>Ren&#233; Descartes was a drunken fart.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267206000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ren&#233; Descartes was a drunken fart.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ren   Descartes was a drunken fart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>René Descartes was a drunken fart.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31289842</id>
	<title>Re:Meditations on First Philosophy</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1267175100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Couldn't disagree more, except that Descartes was clearly an important transitional figure whose philosophical work, like Hume's, is as relevant to what serious modern philosophy ought to be doing as Newton's alchemical work is to what serious modern chemistry ought to be doing.</p><p>"Having God as a first premise" is trivially incoherent.  It leaves unanswered and the questions, "What is God?" and "How do I know anything about God in the first place?"  which can obviously only be answered by reference to something else, which in fact is sense-experience, rather that "thought" as Descarte imagined.  Since sense-experience is trivially prior to the very notion of God, it is clear that having God as a first premise is incoherent at best and dishonest at worst.</p><p>Descartes big mistake in this regard was to believe that since he could fantasize about a disembodied intelligence that it had some ontological weight.  Everyone but philosophers now knows that this method is useless, because we know that it is easy for us to imagine things that are contradictory and impossible.  Humans suck at deducitve closure, so it is easy for us to fail to notice the incoherence of our own imaginings.  We have only two methods of ensuring such coherence:  empirical investigation and mathematical deduction, neither of which philosophers have adopted because they don't care about truth.  They continue to treat their imaginings and the limits of their imaginings as being ontological determinative.</p><p>Descartes' mathematical work, which was fundamental to the eventual melding of algebra and geometry that gave us modern mathematics, has had lasting value.  His philosophical work was important only for its transitional role.  He was a step on the way that's best forgotten today by all but historians.</p><p>Hume is even less coherent than Descarte, with less excuse.  His attempts to undertake an empirical analsyis of sense-experience are so far off the mark as to be laughable.  Even knowing what was known in his own time about the perception of objects it was obvious he didn't have a clue what he was talking about with his fantasies of pure sensations, which are incredibly hard to produce even in the laboratory.  Hume somehow failed to notice that he had never had a pure sensation in his life.  That tells you something about the quality of his philosophy.  That he ultimatly ends up arguing that his own books should be burned--since they clearly fail to fulfill the criteria for non-burning he sets out--is another clue to just how incoherent he was.</p><p>Hume is to be honoured for waking Kant from his "dogmatical slumber", but not much else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't disagree more , except that Descartes was clearly an important transitional figure whose philosophical work , like Hume 's , is as relevant to what serious modern philosophy ought to be doing as Newton 's alchemical work is to what serious modern chemistry ought to be doing .
" Having God as a first premise " is trivially incoherent .
It leaves unanswered and the questions , " What is God ?
" and " How do I know anything about God in the first place ?
" which can obviously only be answered by reference to something else , which in fact is sense-experience , rather that " thought " as Descarte imagined .
Since sense-experience is trivially prior to the very notion of God , it is clear that having God as a first premise is incoherent at best and dishonest at worst.Descartes big mistake in this regard was to believe that since he could fantasize about a disembodied intelligence that it had some ontological weight .
Everyone but philosophers now knows that this method is useless , because we know that it is easy for us to imagine things that are contradictory and impossible .
Humans suck at deducitve closure , so it is easy for us to fail to notice the incoherence of our own imaginings .
We have only two methods of ensuring such coherence : empirical investigation and mathematical deduction , neither of which philosophers have adopted because they do n't care about truth .
They continue to treat their imaginings and the limits of their imaginings as being ontological determinative.Descartes ' mathematical work , which was fundamental to the eventual melding of algebra and geometry that gave us modern mathematics , has had lasting value .
His philosophical work was important only for its transitional role .
He was a step on the way that 's best forgotten today by all but historians.Hume is even less coherent than Descarte , with less excuse .
His attempts to undertake an empirical analsyis of sense-experience are so far off the mark as to be laughable .
Even knowing what was known in his own time about the perception of objects it was obvious he did n't have a clue what he was talking about with his fantasies of pure sensations , which are incredibly hard to produce even in the laboratory .
Hume somehow failed to notice that he had never had a pure sensation in his life .
That tells you something about the quality of his philosophy .
That he ultimatly ends up arguing that his own books should be burned--since they clearly fail to fulfill the criteria for non-burning he sets out--is another clue to just how incoherent he was.Hume is to be honoured for waking Kant from his " dogmatical slumber " , but not much else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't disagree more, except that Descartes was clearly an important transitional figure whose philosophical work, like Hume's, is as relevant to what serious modern philosophy ought to be doing as Newton's alchemical work is to what serious modern chemistry ought to be doing.
"Having God as a first premise" is trivially incoherent.
It leaves unanswered and the questions, "What is God?
" and "How do I know anything about God in the first place?
"  which can obviously only be answered by reference to something else, which in fact is sense-experience, rather that "thought" as Descarte imagined.
Since sense-experience is trivially prior to the very notion of God, it is clear that having God as a first premise is incoherent at best and dishonest at worst.Descartes big mistake in this regard was to believe that since he could fantasize about a disembodied intelligence that it had some ontological weight.
Everyone but philosophers now knows that this method is useless, because we know that it is easy for us to imagine things that are contradictory and impossible.
Humans suck at deducitve closure, so it is easy for us to fail to notice the incoherence of our own imaginings.
We have only two methods of ensuring such coherence:  empirical investigation and mathematical deduction, neither of which philosophers have adopted because they don't care about truth.
They continue to treat their imaginings and the limits of their imaginings as being ontological determinative.Descartes' mathematical work, which was fundamental to the eventual melding of algebra and geometry that gave us modern mathematics, has had lasting value.
His philosophical work was important only for its transitional role.
He was a step on the way that's best forgotten today by all but historians.Hume is even less coherent than Descarte, with less excuse.
His attempts to undertake an empirical analsyis of sense-experience are so far off the mark as to be laughable.
Even knowing what was known in his own time about the perception of objects it was obvious he didn't have a clue what he was talking about with his fantasies of pure sensations, which are incredibly hard to produce even in the laboratory.
Hume somehow failed to notice that he had never had a pure sensation in his life.
That tells you something about the quality of his philosophy.
That he ultimatly ends up arguing that his own books should be burned--since they clearly fail to fulfill the criteria for non-burning he sets out--is another clue to just how incoherent he was.Hume is to be honoured for waking Kant from his "dogmatical slumber", but not much else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285518</id>
	<title>So</title>
	<author>Jurily</author>
	<datestamp>1267202340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>can we have the text please? (Preferably in a human language)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>can we have the text please ?
( Preferably in a human language )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>can we have the text please?
(Preferably in a human language)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31289832</id>
	<title>Re:So</title>
	<author>ari\_j</author>
	<datestamp>1267175040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dear Mssr. Mersenne:<br> <br>
I have just written the funniest book.  My only fear is that some readers may fail to understand the subtle humor in it, and take it seriously.  The far-reaching implications for our sacred field of study could be disastrous.
<br> <br>
Sincerely,<br> <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/s/ Renee</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Mssr .
Mersenne : I have just written the funniest book .
My only fear is that some readers may fail to understand the subtle humor in it , and take it seriously .
The far-reaching implications for our sacred field of study could be disastrous .
Sincerely , /s/ Renee</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear Mssr.
Mersenne: 
I have just written the funniest book.
My only fear is that some readers may fail to understand the subtle humor in it, and take it seriously.
The far-reaching implications for our sacred field of study could be disastrous.
Sincerely,  /s/ Renee</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285938</id>
	<title>Re:So</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267204440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, here you go.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Hey man. You know that whole <i>Meditations</i> thing? Sorry about that. I was totally high when I wrote it. "I think, therefore I am," sounds really deep when you've got orange frogs singing Pink Floyd to you. If you get a chance can you help me retract this thing? I don't want to look like an idiot.</p><p>P.S. Do you know what a Pink Floyd is?</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , here you go.Hey man .
You know that whole Meditations thing ?
Sorry about that .
I was totally high when I wrote it .
" I think , therefore I am , " sounds really deep when you 've got orange frogs singing Pink Floyd to you .
If you get a chance can you help me retract this thing ?
I do n't want to look like an idiot.P.S .
Do you know what a Pink Floyd is ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, here you go.Hey man.
You know that whole Meditations thing?
Sorry about that.
I was totally high when I wrote it.
"I think, therefore I am," sounds really deep when you've got orange frogs singing Pink Floyd to you.
If you get a chance can you help me retract this thing?
I don't want to look like an idiot.P.S.
Do you know what a Pink Floyd is?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31289572</id>
	<title>Re:meh, philosophy is dead</title>
	<author>Monkey-Man2000</author>
	<datestamp>1267217040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Which came first, chicken or the egg? Evolution has taught is it was the egg."


Eh, what? No. An almost-chicken lays an egg with a mutated embryo (the 100\%-chicken). The egg is still an almost-chickenegg, and the first chicken egg is later laid by the chicken.</p></div><p>I think the grandparent was referring to dinosaur eggs, etc. Also, presumably, your "almost-chicken" laid unmutated (almost-chicken) eggs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Which came first , chicken or the egg ?
Evolution has taught is it was the egg .
" Eh , what ?
No. An almost-chicken lays an egg with a mutated embryo ( the 100 \ % -chicken ) .
The egg is still an almost-chickenegg , and the first chicken egg is later laid by the chicken.I think the grandparent was referring to dinosaur eggs , etc .
Also , presumably , your " almost-chicken " laid unmutated ( almost-chicken ) eggs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Which came first, chicken or the egg?
Evolution has taught is it was the egg.
"


Eh, what?
No. An almost-chicken lays an egg with a mutated embryo (the 100\%-chicken).
The egg is still an almost-chickenegg, and the first chicken egg is later laid by the chicken.I think the grandparent was referring to dinosaur eggs, etc.
Also, presumably, your "almost-chicken" laid unmutated (almost-chicken) eggs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285308</id>
	<title>Let the insults begin!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267201380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or not...I don't care...it's Friday</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or not...I do n't care...it 's Friday</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or not...I don't care...it's Friday</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288600</id>
	<title>Re:meh, philosophy is dead</title>
	<author>ENIGMAwastaken</author>
	<datestamp>1267212900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; Historically is was a place for science and mathmatics. Since those disciplines now have there own fields, what the hell good is philosphy?
<br> 
<br> 
What good are science and mathematics?  Well, some of it has practical application.  But the main reason people study those things is that they find them interesting.  People don't become scientists or mathematicians for "the good" of anything, they just do it because it's interesting.  It just happens to have useful side effects down the line.  So it is with philosophy which, as you mention, produced those fields.  So by the transitive property, philosophy is useful insofar is it allowed the production of fields like science and math.  Not to mention that the fundamentals of both science and math are still philosophical issues.  Science is nothing without interpretation, and interpretation of scientific results is just metaphysics.
<br> 
<br> 
&gt;Before someone responds with the boring and done arguments, my initial goal in college was to become a philosophy professor. It was then I realized it ahs nothing new to offer the world. Even the most basic philosophy question have been answered.
<br> 
<br> 
That might have been your goal, but from your post I'm not sure it was ever a serious option for you.  It would be like me saying the reason I'm not a professional soccer player is that "I realized it has nothing to offer the world" rather than the actual reason, which is that I wasn't good at it.  I suspect similar is the case here.
<br> 
<br> 
&gt;Which came first, chicken or the egg? Evolution has taught is it was the egg.
<br> 
<br> 
Actually, if evolution has taught us anything this question, it's that was the chicken.  But since this is your idea of a 'philosophical question' your failure to ascend to a post in academic philosophy is, as I mentioned, unsurprising.  This may shock you, but it's quite hard to become a philosopher.  Getting into Harvard law school is a joke compared to getting into a top philosophy grad school in terms of intellectual talent required.
<br> 
<br> 
&gt;If yopu walk towards something, but only half the remaining difference, will you ever get there: Quantum mechanics has shown us that, yes, we would get there because there is a smallest distance that can be moved.
<br> 
<br> 
Your idea of serious philosophical problems are "which came first, the chicken or the egg" and the sophistical paradoxes of Zeno, which were refuted as soon as he produced them?
<br> 
<br> 
&gt;These may be interesting papers because they come from a time when philosophy was critical to develop logical, rational, and skeptical questions.
<br> 
<br> 
Like I said, the fact that your idea of philosophy is Zeno's paradox and the chicken and egg shows that your understanding of philosophy is quite limited.  Contemporary philosophy is, in some respects, quite difficult to differentiate from science.  Philosophy of Mind is fully engaged with neuroscience, biology, cognitive science, etc.  Even a cursory glance at some of the issues contemporary philosophers work on would show you that this is the case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Historically is was a place for science and mathmatics .
Since those disciplines now have there own fields , what the hell good is philosphy ?
What good are science and mathematics ?
Well , some of it has practical application .
But the main reason people study those things is that they find them interesting .
People do n't become scientists or mathematicians for " the good " of anything , they just do it because it 's interesting .
It just happens to have useful side effects down the line .
So it is with philosophy which , as you mention , produced those fields .
So by the transitive property , philosophy is useful insofar is it allowed the production of fields like science and math .
Not to mention that the fundamentals of both science and math are still philosophical issues .
Science is nothing without interpretation , and interpretation of scientific results is just metaphysics .
&gt; Before someone responds with the boring and done arguments , my initial goal in college was to become a philosophy professor .
It was then I realized it ahs nothing new to offer the world .
Even the most basic philosophy question have been answered .
That might have been your goal , but from your post I 'm not sure it was ever a serious option for you .
It would be like me saying the reason I 'm not a professional soccer player is that " I realized it has nothing to offer the world " rather than the actual reason , which is that I was n't good at it .
I suspect similar is the case here .
&gt; Which came first , chicken or the egg ?
Evolution has taught is it was the egg .
Actually , if evolution has taught us anything this question , it 's that was the chicken .
But since this is your idea of a 'philosophical question ' your failure to ascend to a post in academic philosophy is , as I mentioned , unsurprising .
This may shock you , but it 's quite hard to become a philosopher .
Getting into Harvard law school is a joke compared to getting into a top philosophy grad school in terms of intellectual talent required .
&gt; If yopu walk towards something , but only half the remaining difference , will you ever get there : Quantum mechanics has shown us that , yes , we would get there because there is a smallest distance that can be moved .
Your idea of serious philosophical problems are " which came first , the chicken or the egg " and the sophistical paradoxes of Zeno , which were refuted as soon as he produced them ?
&gt; These may be interesting papers because they come from a time when philosophy was critical to develop logical , rational , and skeptical questions .
Like I said , the fact that your idea of philosophy is Zeno 's paradox and the chicken and egg shows that your understanding of philosophy is quite limited .
Contemporary philosophy is , in some respects , quite difficult to differentiate from science .
Philosophy of Mind is fully engaged with neuroscience , biology , cognitive science , etc .
Even a cursory glance at some of the issues contemporary philosophers work on would show you that this is the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Historically is was a place for science and mathmatics.
Since those disciplines now have there own fields, what the hell good is philosphy?
What good are science and mathematics?
Well, some of it has practical application.
But the main reason people study those things is that they find them interesting.
People don't become scientists or mathematicians for "the good" of anything, they just do it because it's interesting.
It just happens to have useful side effects down the line.
So it is with philosophy which, as you mention, produced those fields.
So by the transitive property, philosophy is useful insofar is it allowed the production of fields like science and math.
Not to mention that the fundamentals of both science and math are still philosophical issues.
Science is nothing without interpretation, and interpretation of scientific results is just metaphysics.
&gt;Before someone responds with the boring and done arguments, my initial goal in college was to become a philosophy professor.
It was then I realized it ahs nothing new to offer the world.
Even the most basic philosophy question have been answered.
That might have been your goal, but from your post I'm not sure it was ever a serious option for you.
It would be like me saying the reason I'm not a professional soccer player is that "I realized it has nothing to offer the world" rather than the actual reason, which is that I wasn't good at it.
I suspect similar is the case here.
&gt;Which came first, chicken or the egg?
Evolution has taught is it was the egg.
Actually, if evolution has taught us anything this question, it's that was the chicken.
But since this is your idea of a 'philosophical question' your failure to ascend to a post in academic philosophy is, as I mentioned, unsurprising.
This may shock you, but it's quite hard to become a philosopher.
Getting into Harvard law school is a joke compared to getting into a top philosophy grad school in terms of intellectual talent required.
&gt;If yopu walk towards something, but only half the remaining difference, will you ever get there: Quantum mechanics has shown us that, yes, we would get there because there is a smallest distance that can be moved.
Your idea of serious philosophical problems are "which came first, the chicken or the egg" and the sophistical paradoxes of Zeno, which were refuted as soon as he produced them?
&gt;These may be interesting papers because they come from a time when philosophy was critical to develop logical, rational, and skeptical questions.
Like I said, the fact that your idea of philosophy is Zeno's paradox and the chicken and egg shows that your understanding of philosophy is quite limited.
Contemporary philosophy is, in some respects, quite difficult to differentiate from science.
Philosophy of Mind is fully engaged with neuroscience, biology, cognitive science, etc.
Even a cursory glance at some of the issues contemporary philosophers work on would show you that this is the case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287740</id>
	<title>Re:Meditations on First Philosophy</title>
	<author>Mikkeles</author>
	<datestamp>1267210140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess now it's: 'He's dead, therefore he isn't'?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess now it 's : 'He 's dead , therefore he is n't ' ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess now it's: 'He's dead, therefore he isn't'?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288268</id>
	<title>dual wield</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1267211880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The letter was blank, though, because the writing was an independent phenomena and it went off on its own.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The letter was blank , though , because the writing was an independent phenomena and it went off on its own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The letter was blank, though, because the writing was an independent phenomena and it went off on its own.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285288</id>
	<title>fp!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267201320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>etc</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>etc</tokentext>
<sentencetext>etc</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31292284</id>
	<title>Re:I'm guessing the letter was: "&#233; "</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1267187760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Re you using the Zerty keybord lyout?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Re you using the Zerty keybord lyout ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Re you using the Zerty keybord lyout?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31286420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287934</id>
	<title>Re:So</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1267210860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hos did you manage to type such a redundant sentence? How did you manage to get through school without learning about the question mark?</p><p>So many questions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hos did you manage to type such a redundant sentence ?
How did you manage to get through school without learning about the question mark ? So many questions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hos did you manage to type such a redundant sentence?
How did you manage to get through school without learning about the question mark?So many questions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285890</id>
	<title>Re:Meditations on First Philosophy</title>
	<author>SpeedyDX</author>
	<datestamp>1267204200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Descartes might have been wrong, but that's kind of missing the point. During an era when scepticism was viewed as being inherently blasphemous and absurd, he embraced scepticism as a practical philosophy. Descartes, along with Hume and several others during the early modern period, began to establish moderate scepticism as the basis for a practical philosophy of scientific enquiry.</p><p>There's no doubting that Descartes made many mistakes in Meditations. But from the fact that the work isn't perfect, it doesn't entail that it wasn't a great and influential work that's brought us one step closer to understanding the nature of reason. One step of many, to be sure, but one step nonetheless.</p><p>Also, he didn't say that he can't trust the existence of the world without God. Rather, he gave an ontological argument for God, established His existence, and then, because God exists and He doesn't deceive, Descartes no longer had to justify the existence of the world (without a God). Of course, this is what led to the famed Cartesian circle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian\_circle), but your short analysis showed that you didn't really understand the text. As I replied in another thread, Jonathan Bennett is translating early modern works to more modern language, resulting in more clear and accessible works (available: <a href="http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/de.html" title="earlymoderntexts.com">http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/de.html</a> [earlymoderntexts.com]). I highly encourage that you read it over again and try to get more out of it.</p><p>While I'm at it, it seems that a more empirical philosophy would interest you more. Descartes had some influence on Hume's work. Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding is one of the best treatments of the philosophy of science in the early modern era, and definitely my favourite work out of that era. if you're interested, you should definitely check it out: <a href="http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/he.html" title="earlymoderntexts.com">http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/he.html</a> [earlymoderntexts.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Descartes might have been wrong , but that 's kind of missing the point .
During an era when scepticism was viewed as being inherently blasphemous and absurd , he embraced scepticism as a practical philosophy .
Descartes , along with Hume and several others during the early modern period , began to establish moderate scepticism as the basis for a practical philosophy of scientific enquiry.There 's no doubting that Descartes made many mistakes in Meditations .
But from the fact that the work is n't perfect , it does n't entail that it was n't a great and influential work that 's brought us one step closer to understanding the nature of reason .
One step of many , to be sure , but one step nonetheless.Also , he did n't say that he ca n't trust the existence of the world without God .
Rather , he gave an ontological argument for God , established His existence , and then , because God exists and He does n't deceive , Descartes no longer had to justify the existence of the world ( without a God ) .
Of course , this is what led to the famed Cartesian circle ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian \ _circle ) , but your short analysis showed that you did n't really understand the text .
As I replied in another thread , Jonathan Bennett is translating early modern works to more modern language , resulting in more clear and accessible works ( available : http : //www.earlymoderntexts.com/de.html [ earlymoderntexts.com ] ) .
I highly encourage that you read it over again and try to get more out of it.While I 'm at it , it seems that a more empirical philosophy would interest you more .
Descartes had some influence on Hume 's work .
Hume 's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding is one of the best treatments of the philosophy of science in the early modern era , and definitely my favourite work out of that era .
if you 're interested , you should definitely check it out : http : //www.earlymoderntexts.com/he.html [ earlymoderntexts.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Descartes might have been wrong, but that's kind of missing the point.
During an era when scepticism was viewed as being inherently blasphemous and absurd, he embraced scepticism as a practical philosophy.
Descartes, along with Hume and several others during the early modern period, began to establish moderate scepticism as the basis for a practical philosophy of scientific enquiry.There's no doubting that Descartes made many mistakes in Meditations.
But from the fact that the work isn't perfect, it doesn't entail that it wasn't a great and influential work that's brought us one step closer to understanding the nature of reason.
One step of many, to be sure, but one step nonetheless.Also, he didn't say that he can't trust the existence of the world without God.
Rather, he gave an ontological argument for God, established His existence, and then, because God exists and He doesn't deceive, Descartes no longer had to justify the existence of the world (without a God).
Of course, this is what led to the famed Cartesian circle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian\_circle), but your short analysis showed that you didn't really understand the text.
As I replied in another thread, Jonathan Bennett is translating early modern works to more modern language, resulting in more clear and accessible works (available: http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/de.html [earlymoderntexts.com]).
I highly encourage that you read it over again and try to get more out of it.While I'm at it, it seems that a more empirical philosophy would interest you more.
Descartes had some influence on Hume's work.
Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding is one of the best treatments of the philosophy of science in the early modern era, and definitely my favourite work out of that era.
if you're interested, you should definitely check it out: http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/he.html [earlymoderntexts.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31286090</id>
	<title>out of body experience</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267204920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think there,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... fore I am!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think there , ... fore I am !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think there, ... fore I am!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288120</id>
	<title>Re:heresy</title>
	<author>drjoe1e6</author>
	<datestamp>1267211400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Interestingly this comes just a few days after I read an article supporting the theory that Descartes was actually assassinated for his controversial views and his influence on Queen Christina of Sweden, by his own priest to boot.</p></div><p>Yes, it was very sad.  The assassins sent some wild stallions to trample him.  I guess that's why you should never put Decartes before the horse.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interestingly this comes just a few days after I read an article supporting the theory that Descartes was actually assassinated for his controversial views and his influence on Queen Christina of Sweden , by his own priest to boot.Yes , it was very sad .
The assassins sent some wild stallions to trample him .
I guess that 's why you should never put Decartes before the horse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interestingly this comes just a few days after I read an article supporting the theory that Descartes was actually assassinated for his controversial views and his influence on Queen Christina of Sweden, by his own priest to boot.Yes, it was very sad.
The assassins sent some wild stallions to trample him.
I guess that's why you should never put Decartes before the horse.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31286590</id>
	<title>Re:Meditations on First Philosophy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267206420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think I am<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I am .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I am ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287330</id>
	<title>Re:heresy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267208820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He has a reputation of being a girlie man in Sweden (all he ever did in Sweden was complaining over the cold and that he had to get up "early" in the morning to give the Queen Regnant lessons). If it could be proved that he died by poisoning, then he would perhaps get a better legacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He has a reputation of being a girlie man in Sweden ( all he ever did in Sweden was complaining over the cold and that he had to get up " early " in the morning to give the Queen Regnant lessons ) .
If it could be proved that he died by poisoning , then he would perhaps get a better legacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He has a reputation of being a girlie man in Sweden (all he ever did in Sweden was complaining over the cold and that he had to get up "early" in the morning to give the Queen Regnant lessons).
If it could be proved that he died by poisoning, then he would perhaps get a better legacy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285432</id>
	<title>I'm confused</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267201980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> Scholars have known of the letter&rsquo;s existence for more than 300 years, but not its contents. Apparently the only person who had really studied it was a Haverford undergraduate who spent a semester writing a paper about the letter in 1979. (Mr. Bos called the paper &ldquo;a truly fine piece of work.&rdquo;)</p></div></blockquote><p>

So did they know it existed or not? Is the news just that the letter is being returned to France? Big deal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Scholars have known of the letter    s existence for more than 300 years , but not its contents .
Apparently the only person who had really studied it was a Haverford undergraduate who spent a semester writing a paper about the letter in 1979 .
( Mr. Bos called the paper    a truly fine piece of work.    ) So did they know it existed or not ?
Is the news just that the letter is being returned to France ?
Big deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Scholars have known of the letter’s existence for more than 300 years, but not its contents.
Apparently the only person who had really studied it was a Haverford undergraduate who spent a semester writing a paper about the letter in 1979.
(Mr. Bos called the paper “a truly fine piece of work.”)

So did they know it existed or not?
Is the news just that the letter is being returned to France?
Big deal.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31289906</id>
	<title>Re:meh, philosophy is dead</title>
	<author>ari\_j</author>
	<datestamp>1267175520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's really a question of what you mean by the "egg."  Is the egg the growing embryo inside the eggshell, or is it the shell itself?  All philosophical arguments devolve to semantics, after all.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's really a question of what you mean by the " egg .
" Is the egg the growing embryo inside the eggshell , or is it the shell itself ?
All philosophical arguments devolve to semantics , after all .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's really a question of what you mean by the "egg.
"  Is the egg the growing embryo inside the eggshell, or is it the shell itself?
All philosophical arguments devolve to semantics, after all.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31291094</id>
	<title>Re:Meditations on First Philosophy</title>
	<author>StikyPad</author>
	<datestamp>1267181220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>the statement Descartes made actually translates a bit better to "I think, I am"</i></p><p>Not really.  It was pretty unambiguous both in the original French (Je pense donc je suis, from Discourse on Method) and when later translated into Latin by Descartes himself (<i>Cogito ergo sum</i>, e.g. in Principles of Philosophy).  The former has both a literal translation and, when considered in context, a meaningful translation to the well known phrase "I think, therefore I am."  The latter is as close as Latin allows.</p><p>Je = I<br>pense = think (present tense)<br>donc = so, therefore<br>je = I<br>suis = am (present tense)</p><p>Cogito = to think<br>ergo = therefore<br>sum = to be, exist, am</p><p>And <i>ergo</i> is still used verbatim in English as the word which signifies the conclusion of a preceding argument.</p><p>None of which invalidates the remainder of your analysis, with which I concur, but it seemed necessary to clarify, especially in light of the nonsense post above yours.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the statement Descartes made actually translates a bit better to " I think , I am " Not really .
It was pretty unambiguous both in the original French ( Je pense donc je suis , from Discourse on Method ) and when later translated into Latin by Descartes himself ( Cogito ergo sum , e.g .
in Principles of Philosophy ) .
The former has both a literal translation and , when considered in context , a meaningful translation to the well known phrase " I think , therefore I am .
" The latter is as close as Latin allows.Je = Ipense = think ( present tense ) donc = so , thereforeje = Isuis = am ( present tense ) Cogito = to thinkergo = thereforesum = to be , exist , amAnd ergo is still used verbatim in English as the word which signifies the conclusion of a preceding argument.None of which invalidates the remainder of your analysis , with which I concur , but it seemed necessary to clarify , especially in light of the nonsense post above yours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the statement Descartes made actually translates a bit better to "I think, I am"Not really.
It was pretty unambiguous both in the original French (Je pense donc je suis, from Discourse on Method) and when later translated into Latin by Descartes himself (Cogito ergo sum, e.g.
in Principles of Philosophy).
The former has both a literal translation and, when considered in context, a meaningful translation to the well known phrase "I think, therefore I am.
"  The latter is as close as Latin allows.Je = Ipense = think (present tense)donc = so, thereforeje = Isuis = am (present tense)Cogito = to thinkergo = thereforesum = to be, exist, amAnd ergo is still used verbatim in English as the word which signifies the conclusion of a preceding argument.None of which invalidates the remainder of your analysis, with which I concur, but it seemed necessary to clarify, especially in light of the nonsense post above yours.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31286378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288556</id>
	<title>Buddhists and "I"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267212780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Chapter 1 was great, and ended in the pinnacle of the work "I think therefore I am".</p></div><p>Well, AFAIK, the Buddhists reject the notion of self. So for them, even the above is incorrect.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chapter 1 was great , and ended in the pinnacle of the work " I think therefore I am " .Well , AFAIK , the Buddhists reject the notion of self .
So for them , even the above is incorrect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chapter 1 was great, and ended in the pinnacle of the work "I think therefore I am".Well, AFAIK, the Buddhists reject the notion of self.
So for them, even the above is incorrect.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31286706</id>
	<title>Re:Rene Descartes</title>
	<author>sconeu</author>
	<datestamp>1267206780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[MONTY-PYTHON song="Philosophers Song"]<br>Rene Descartes was a drunken fart, "I drink therefore I am!"<br>[/MONTY-PYTHON]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ MONTY-PYTHON song = " Philosophers Song " ] Rene Descartes was a drunken fart , " I drink therefore I am !
" [ /MONTY-PYTHON ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[MONTY-PYTHON song="Philosophers Song"]Rene Descartes was a drunken fart, "I drink therefore I am!
"[/MONTY-PYTHON]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285788</id>
	<title>...And Ren&#233; Descartes</title>
	<author>the darn</author>
	<datestamp>1267203600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>was a drunken fart,
"I drink therefore I am!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>was a drunken fart , " I drink therefore I am !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>was a drunken fart,
"I drink therefore I am!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285750</id>
	<title>Re:I'm guessing the letter was: "&#233; "</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267203480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some "stolen" letters that Ren&#233; Descartes was using and that the English language is not using:<br> <br>
&#233; &#232; &#234; &#244; &#249; &#224; &#235; &#231; &#238; <br> <br>
We call these caracters "caract&#232;re accentu&#233;s" in French.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some " stolen " letters that Ren   Descartes was using and that the English language is not using :                   We call these caracters " caract   re accentu   s " in French .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some "stolen" letters that René Descartes was using and that the English language is not using: 
é è ê ô ù à ë ç î  
We call these caracters "caractère accentués" in French.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31286378</id>
	<title>Re:Meditations on First Philosophy</title>
	<author>BarryJacobsen</author>
	<datestamp>1267205760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"I think therefore I am" sounds a bit bold an affirmation.
It's more like "I think I think, therefore I think I think I think" IMHO.</p></div><p>It's not really all that bold.  According to my philosophy professors (I was a philosophy major), the statement Descartes made actually translates a bit better to "I think, I am".  When taken in context (attempting to doubt every possible thing), this statement means that I can be certain that I am thinking (whatever that may mean, it may mean I am creating the sounds that I hear in my head or it may mean that those sounds are being put into me).  If I am thinking, then there is something that definitely exists (otherwise there would be no one to have thought) - and further more that something is me.  Everything else in the world may be a lie or deception, but with certainty: I exist by the virtue of having thought (though I may not be what I think I am and the world may not be what I think it is).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I think therefore I am " sounds a bit bold an affirmation .
It 's more like " I think I think , therefore I think I think I think " IMHO.It 's not really all that bold .
According to my philosophy professors ( I was a philosophy major ) , the statement Descartes made actually translates a bit better to " I think , I am " .
When taken in context ( attempting to doubt every possible thing ) , this statement means that I can be certain that I am thinking ( whatever that may mean , it may mean I am creating the sounds that I hear in my head or it may mean that those sounds are being put into me ) .
If I am thinking , then there is something that definitely exists ( otherwise there would be no one to have thought ) - and further more that something is me .
Everything else in the world may be a lie or deception , but with certainty : I exist by the virtue of having thought ( though I may not be what I think I am and the world may not be what I think it is ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I think therefore I am" sounds a bit bold an affirmation.
It's more like "I think I think, therefore I think I think I think" IMHO.It's not really all that bold.
According to my philosophy professors (I was a philosophy major), the statement Descartes made actually translates a bit better to "I think, I am".
When taken in context (attempting to doubt every possible thing), this statement means that I can be certain that I am thinking (whatever that may mean, it may mean I am creating the sounds that I hear in my head or it may mean that those sounds are being put into me).
If I am thinking, then there is something that definitely exists (otherwise there would be no one to have thought) - and further more that something is me.
Everything else in the world may be a lie or deception, but with certainty: I exist by the virtue of having thought (though I may not be what I think I am and the world may not be what I think it is).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288986</id>
	<title>Re:Meditations on First Philosophy</title>
	<author>six11</author>
	<datestamp>1267214520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks for the reference to Bennett's site. Those  translations will probably help me a lot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for the reference to Bennett 's site .
Those translations will probably help me a lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for the reference to Bennett's site.
Those  translations will probably help me a lot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287884</id>
	<title>Re:Meditations on First Philosophy</title>
	<author>ByOhTek</author>
	<datestamp>1267210680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was more questioning his methods than saying 'right or wrong', although the 'nothing can create something more perfect/complex/etc.' stuff kindof irked me, because it can be taken way to out of context (it fits through thermodynamics, but people have trouble recognizing open systems).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was more questioning his methods than saying 'right or wrong ' , although the 'nothing can create something more perfect/complex/etc .
' stuff kindof irked me , because it can be taken way to out of context ( it fits through thermodynamics , but people have trouble recognizing open systems ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was more questioning his methods than saying 'right or wrong', although the 'nothing can create something more perfect/complex/etc.
' stuff kindof irked me, because it can be taken way to out of context (it fits through thermodynamics, but people have trouble recognizing open systems).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31289490</id>
	<title>Dear Rene</title>
	<author>goffster</author>
	<datestamp>1267216560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Astrology works OK, but I have found that music is the best way to snag a babe.   Go grab yourself a Spanish guitar and you can't go wrong.</p><p>Yours always,<br>Marin</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Astrology works OK , but I have found that music is the best way to snag a babe .
Go grab yourself a Spanish guitar and you ca n't go wrong.Yours always,Marin</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Astrology works OK, but I have found that music is the best way to snag a babe.
Go grab yourself a Spanish guitar and you can't go wrong.Yours always,Marin</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31286438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31291008</id>
	<title>Re:Meditations on First Philosophy</title>
	<author>holmstar</author>
	<datestamp>1267180680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I suspect Descartes fear had more to do with the possibility of ending up on a burning stake... roman inquisition and all that... but I could be wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect Descartes fear had more to do with the possibility of ending up on a burning stake... roman inquisition and all that... but I could be wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect Descartes fear had more to do with the possibility of ending up on a burning stake... roman inquisition and all that... but I could be wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285666</id>
	<title>Re:It said that Descartes liked turtles.</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1267203060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's turtles all the way down, young man.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's turtles all the way down , young man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's turtles all the way down, young man.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288292</id>
	<title>Re:Meditations on First Philosophy</title>
	<author>MobileTatsu-NJG</author>
	<datestamp>1267211940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait... wasn't that Popeye?  It's so easy to get those two confused.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait... was n't that Popeye ?
It 's so easy to get those two confused .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait... wasn't that Popeye?
It's so easy to get those two confused.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285418</id>
	<title>Rene Descartes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267201920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rene Descartes walks into a bar.  The bartender asks "can I get you a beer?"  Descartes replies "I think not!" and he disappears.</p><p>Thanks, I'm here all week!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rene Descartes walks into a bar .
The bartender asks " can I get you a beer ?
" Descartes replies " I think not !
" and he disappears.Thanks , I 'm here all week !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rene Descartes walks into a bar.
The bartender asks "can I get you a beer?
"  Descartes replies "I think not!
" and he disappears.Thanks, I'm here all week!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31286310</id>
	<title>Re:So</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267205520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's the variant on the old joke.</p><p>"For 30 years, the guard at the French Public Library for the evening shift noticed Gugli walking out with a book tucked under his arm.  He always make sure to talk to Gugli, as Gugli would look very suspicious, as if he'd done something wrong.  The guard always figured there wasn't something quite right about Gugli.  So he'd search him, but always find nothing.</p><p>"After retiring, the guard wanted this mystery solved, so one day he followed Gugli home.  He asked, 'Okay, I know you've been making some kind of mischief all these years, but I've never been able to figure out what.  What have you been stealing?'</p><p>"Gugli responded, 'Books!'"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's the variant on the old joke .
" For 30 years , the guard at the French Public Library for the evening shift noticed Gugli walking out with a book tucked under his arm .
He always make sure to talk to Gugli , as Gugli would look very suspicious , as if he 'd done something wrong .
The guard always figured there was n't something quite right about Gugli .
So he 'd search him , but always find nothing .
" After retiring , the guard wanted this mystery solved , so one day he followed Gugli home .
He asked , 'Okay , I know you 've been making some kind of mischief all these years , but I 've never been able to figure out what .
What have you been stealing ?
' " Gugli responded , 'Books !
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's the variant on the old joke.
"For 30 years, the guard at the French Public Library for the evening shift noticed Gugli walking out with a book tucked under his arm.
He always make sure to talk to Gugli, as Gugli would look very suspicious, as if he'd done something wrong.
The guard always figured there wasn't something quite right about Gugli.
So he'd search him, but always find nothing.
"After retiring, the guard wanted this mystery solved, so one day he followed Gugli home.
He asked, 'Okay, I know you've been making some kind of mischief all these years, but I've never been able to figure out what.
What have you been stealing?
'"Gugli responded, 'Books!
'"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285692</id>
	<title>So</title>
	<author>OrangeMonkey11</author>
	<datestamp>1267203240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How did Guglielmo Libri the Italian mathematician got away with stealing 30,000 books and manuscript from France and got away with it.  How did the official at the French Public Library not notice that one of their employee had made off with 30,000 items that does not belong to him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How did Guglielmo Libri the Italian mathematician got away with stealing 30,000 books and manuscript from France and got away with it .
How did the official at the French Public Library not notice that one of their employee had made off with 30,000 items that does not belong to him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How did Guglielmo Libri the Italian mathematician got away with stealing 30,000 books and manuscript from France and got away with it.
How did the official at the French Public Library not notice that one of their employee had made off with 30,000 items that does not belong to him.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287404</id>
	<title>Finally!</title>
	<author>Kingrames</author>
	<datestamp>1267209060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Finally, someone thought, and therefore, it was.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , someone thought , and therefore , it was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally, someone thought, and therefore, it was.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285796</id>
	<title>Lot about the letter, not about the content.</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1267203660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Goddamnit, it's not like the letter is written in some prehistoric code that will take months to decrypt. 90\% of the article is about fates of the paper, less than two short paragraphs on what is written on the paper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Goddamnit , it 's not like the letter is written in some prehistoric code that will take months to decrypt .
90 \ % of the article is about fates of the paper , less than two short paragraphs on what is written on the paper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Goddamnit, it's not like the letter is written in some prehistoric code that will take months to decrypt.
90\% of the article is about fates of the paper, less than two short paragraphs on what is written on the paper.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31286362</id>
	<title>Barnes &amp; Noble cancels all weekend passes</title>
	<author>paiute</author>
	<datestamp>1267205700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somewhere in the literary continuum, Dan Brown was roused from his fitful sleep and his dreams of multicolored zebra-striped kittens by a frantic phone call from his agent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somewhere in the literary continuum , Dan Brown was roused from his fitful sleep and his dreams of multicolored zebra-striped kittens by a frantic phone call from his agent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somewhere in the literary continuum, Dan Brown was roused from his fitful sleep and his dreams of multicolored zebra-striped kittens by a frantic phone call from his agent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287784</id>
	<title>Upload please!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267210320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can someone please ensure that high resolution scans are taken and uploaded to wikipedia? after +350 years i doubt they're still copyrighted. if no one comes up for the costs of digitizing them I'll open a paypal (or whatever) account to raise money for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone please ensure that high resolution scans are taken and uploaded to wikipedia ?
after + 350 years i doubt they 're still copyrighted .
if no one comes up for the costs of digitizing them I 'll open a paypal ( or whatever ) account to raise money for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can someone please ensure that high resolution scans are taken and uploaded to wikipedia?
after +350 years i doubt they're still copyrighted.
if no one comes up for the costs of digitizing them I'll open a paypal (or whatever) account to raise money for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287902</id>
	<title>Re:...And Ren&#233; Descartes</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1267210740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cheers Bruce!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cheers Bruce !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cheers Bruce!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31290480</id>
	<title>Re:meh, philosophy is dead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267178160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who said he was talking about a chicken egg? Any egg will do. Therefore egg was first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who said he was talking about a chicken egg ?
Any egg will do .
Therefore egg was first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who said he was talking about a chicken egg?
Any egg will do.
Therefore egg was first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31286034</id>
	<title>Ugh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267204740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If only it was something useful like some math work or something we don't know. But no, it's the precursor to something that already happened. Whoopy-fucking-do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If only it was something useful like some math work or something we do n't know .
But no , it 's the precursor to something that already happened .
Whoopy-fucking-do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only it was something useful like some math work or something we don't know.
But no, it's the precursor to something that already happened.
Whoopy-fucking-do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285426</id>
	<title>It said that Descartes liked turtles.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267201920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logo\_(programming\_language)" title="wikipedia.org">Turtles</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Turtles [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Turtles [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288446</id>
	<title>Re:meh, philosophy is dead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267212420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Which came first, chicken or the egg? Evolution has taught is it was the egg."<br> <br>
Eh, what? No. An almost-chicken lays an egg with a mutated embryo (the 100\%-chicken). The egg is still an almost-chickenegg, and the first chicken egg is later laid by the chicken.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Which came first , chicken or the egg ?
Evolution has taught is it was the egg .
" Eh , what ?
No. An almost-chicken lays an egg with a mutated embryo ( the 100 \ % -chicken ) .
The egg is still an almost-chickenegg , and the first chicken egg is later laid by the chicken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Which came first, chicken or the egg?
Evolution has taught is it was the egg.
" 
Eh, what?
No. An almost-chicken lays an egg with a mutated embryo (the 100\%-chicken).
The egg is still an almost-chickenegg, and the first chicken egg is later laid by the chicken.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285326</id>
	<title>I'm guessing the letter was: "&#233; "</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267201440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, we don't have that "&#233; " letter in our alphabet, so we must have lost it.  However I'm thinking Ren&#233; Descartes may have just stolen it... you know how those French are...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , we do n't have that "   " letter in our alphabet , so we must have lost it .
However I 'm thinking Ren   Descartes may have just stolen it... you know how those French are.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, we don't have that "é " letter in our alphabet, so we must have lost it.
However I'm thinking René Descartes may have just stolen it... you know how those French are...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31290812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31286572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31292284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31286420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31293142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31286800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31289614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31286090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31289832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31291116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31286682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31290026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31289496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31294218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31291094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31286378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31289340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31286706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31290518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31291428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31289906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31294086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31286420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31291540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31291008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31290480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31289490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31286438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31293928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31292536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31332064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31286590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31289572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31289842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1438232_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31286310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1438232.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285768
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31286378
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31291094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285890
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288986
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31289842
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31286090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285754
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31286590
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31286572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288194
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31291008
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1438232.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31290812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288446
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31294218
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31289614
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31289906
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31289572
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31290480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31293928
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31289340
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31291428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31290026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31291116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31289496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31291540
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1438232.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31286706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1438232.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31286800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288120
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1438232.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31290518
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1438232.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287072
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1438232.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1438232.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31286310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285954
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1438232.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285750
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31288240
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31292536
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31293142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31286420
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31292284
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31294086
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1438232.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285666
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1438232.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1438232.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31332064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31289832
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1438232.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31286682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1438232.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31285788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287902
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1438232.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31286438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31289490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1438232.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1438232.31287784
</commentlist>
</conversation>
