<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_28_1650241</id>
	<title>Open Gov Tracker Reveals Best US Open Government Ideas</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1267378080000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>jonverve writes <i>"In May of 2009, the White House <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2009/09/28/big-government-means-big-business-for-data-sharing-start-ups/">launched an Ideascale site</a> to gather ideas from citizens to identify ways to 'strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness by making government more transparent, participatory, and collaborative.'  The digital letdown was when many of the top ideas generated by the process were to <a href="http://opengov.ideascale.com/a/ideafactory.do?id=4049&amp;mode=top">legalize marijuana</a>, solve tax issues and to reinvestigate Obama's birth origins. Fast forward to February 6 and the same process has been repeated with individual federal agencies as the subject.  This time the idea generation has been much more productive, with ideas such as establishing clear benchmarks on humanitarian progress in Sudan to the State Department, <a href="http://openeducation.ideascale.com/a/dtd/21851-7030">funding for open source text books</a> and materials to the Department of Education, making it easier to access previously FOIAed documents to the Department of Justice, and <a href="http://opennasa.ideascale.com/a/dtd/24748-7044">creating a Wiki for NASA</a> to share its data and to engage the public. Hackers from NASA's <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/12/02/152241/NASA-Nebula-Cloud-Computing-In-a-Container">Nebula cloud computing platform</a> have <a href="http://opengovtracker.com/">created a site that aggregates 23 of these idea sites</a> to give a quick peek into the best rated contributions in each category.  Programmed in Python and using the MongoDB and Tornado web server, the Open Gov Tracker was <a href="http://govfresh.com/2010/02/quick-chat-with-hackers-behind-opengov-tracker/">highlighted by the open government blog Govfresh</a> this past week as well.  Jessy Cowan-Sharp, one of the creators, explained their motivation: 'We thought that a single access point would give a sense of the participation on all the different sites, a window into the discussions happening, build some excitement, and inspire people to participate.'  The process closes on March 19th, so go and visit the site to contribute your ideas and vote!"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>jonverve writes " In May of 2009 , the White House launched an Ideascale site to gather ideas from citizens to identify ways to 'strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness by making government more transparent , participatory , and collaborative .
' The digital letdown was when many of the top ideas generated by the process were to legalize marijuana , solve tax issues and to reinvestigate Obama 's birth origins .
Fast forward to February 6 and the same process has been repeated with individual federal agencies as the subject .
This time the idea generation has been much more productive , with ideas such as establishing clear benchmarks on humanitarian progress in Sudan to the State Department , funding for open source text books and materials to the Department of Education , making it easier to access previously FOIAed documents to the Department of Justice , and creating a Wiki for NASA to share its data and to engage the public .
Hackers from NASA 's Nebula cloud computing platform have created a site that aggregates 23 of these idea sites to give a quick peek into the best rated contributions in each category .
Programmed in Python and using the MongoDB and Tornado web server , the Open Gov Tracker was highlighted by the open government blog Govfresh this past week as well .
Jessy Cowan-Sharp , one of the creators , explained their motivation : 'We thought that a single access point would give a sense of the participation on all the different sites , a window into the discussions happening , build some excitement , and inspire people to participate .
' The process closes on March 19th , so go and visit the site to contribute your ideas and vote !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>jonverve writes "In May of 2009, the White House launched an Ideascale site to gather ideas from citizens to identify ways to 'strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness by making government more transparent, participatory, and collaborative.
'  The digital letdown was when many of the top ideas generated by the process were to legalize marijuana, solve tax issues and to reinvestigate Obama's birth origins.
Fast forward to February 6 and the same process has been repeated with individual federal agencies as the subject.
This time the idea generation has been much more productive, with ideas such as establishing clear benchmarks on humanitarian progress in Sudan to the State Department, funding for open source text books and materials to the Department of Education, making it easier to access previously FOIAed documents to the Department of Justice, and creating a Wiki for NASA to share its data and to engage the public.
Hackers from NASA's Nebula cloud computing platform have created a site that aggregates 23 of these idea sites to give a quick peek into the best rated contributions in each category.
Programmed in Python and using the MongoDB and Tornado web server, the Open Gov Tracker was highlighted by the open government blog Govfresh this past week as well.
Jessy Cowan-Sharp, one of the creators, explained their motivation: 'We thought that a single access point would give a sense of the participation on all the different sites, a window into the discussions happening, build some excitement, and inspire people to participate.
'  The process closes on March 19th, so go and visit the site to contribute your ideas and vote!
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31308748</id>
	<title>Re:drugs are bad, mmkay?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267351080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that drugs are evil, and I am for legalizing them.</p><p>The evil they do to their users is only a part of the evil they do to society: gangs fight for recruits and territory, users commit crime to fund their habit, terrorists get rich making and shipping the stuff...<br>And even users may benefit from legalization, if done right, since it creates plenty of opportunities of engaging them, instead of alienating and criminalizing them.</p><p>The main issue with legalizing, is making sure nobody tries to turn us all into junkies, the way they do with cigarettes, fatty foods....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that drugs are evil , and I am for legalizing them.The evil they do to their users is only a part of the evil they do to society : gangs fight for recruits and territory , users commit crime to fund their habit , terrorists get rich making and shipping the stuff...And even users may benefit from legalization , if done right , since it creates plenty of opportunities of engaging them , instead of alienating and criminalizing them.The main issue with legalizing , is making sure nobody tries to turn us all into junkies , the way they do with cigarettes , fatty foods... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that drugs are evil, and I am for legalizing them.The evil they do to their users is only a part of the evil they do to society: gangs fight for recruits and territory, users commit crime to fund their habit, terrorists get rich making and shipping the stuff...And even users may benefit from legalization, if done right, since it creates plenty of opportunities of engaging them, instead of alienating and criminalizing them.The main issue with legalizing, is making sure nobody tries to turn us all into junkies, the way they do with cigarettes, fatty foods....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31310050</id>
	<title>Public funding = open access+open source</title>
	<author>dwheeler</author>
	<datestamp>1267360920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Please support proposals such as the proposal to the National Science Foundation (NSF) called
"<a href="http://opennsf.ideascale.com/a/dtd/26920-7046" title="ideascale.com">Public funding = Public viewing</a> [ideascale.com]" (by voting for them, making positive comments, etc.).  This proposal recommends that
publicly funded projects must be published as open access and all data and code shared as open source software.
If "We the people" pay for research and development, then "we the people" should get the results.
If there aren't existing proposals for certain agencies, please add them.</p><p>
As I've commented before,
<a href="http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2009/05/22#default-release-oss" title="dwheeler.com">Government-developed Unclassified Software</a> [dwheeler.com]
should be default be released as Open Source Software, and
<a href="http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2009/12/13#open-access-2009" title="dwheeler.com">U.S. research should be open access</a> [dwheeler.com].
The current model, especially for research and development, isn't working.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please support proposals such as the proposal to the National Science Foundation ( NSF ) called " Public funding = Public viewing [ ideascale.com ] " ( by voting for them , making positive comments , etc. ) .
This proposal recommends that publicly funded projects must be published as open access and all data and code shared as open source software .
If " We the people " pay for research and development , then " we the people " should get the results .
If there are n't existing proposals for certain agencies , please add them .
As I 've commented before , Government-developed Unclassified Software [ dwheeler.com ] should be default be released as Open Source Software , and U.S. research should be open access [ dwheeler.com ] .
The current model , especially for research and development , is n't working .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Please support proposals such as the proposal to the National Science Foundation (NSF) called
"Public funding = Public viewing [ideascale.com]" (by voting for them, making positive comments, etc.).
This proposal recommends that
publicly funded projects must be published as open access and all data and code shared as open source software.
If "We the people" pay for research and development, then "we the people" should get the results.
If there aren't existing proposals for certain agencies, please add them.
As I've commented before,
Government-developed Unclassified Software [dwheeler.com]
should be default be released as Open Source Software, and
U.S. research should be open access [dwheeler.com].
The current model, especially for research and development, isn't working.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307316</id>
	<title>Re:drugs are bad, mmkay?</title>
	<author>kestasjk</author>
	<datestamp>1267383420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Getting stoned off your balls is always a worthwhile and viable policy objective.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Getting stoned off your balls is always a worthwhile and viable policy objective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Getting stoned off your balls is always a worthwhile and viable policy objective.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307664</id>
	<title>Re:drugs are bad, mmkay?</title>
	<author>clarkkent09</author>
	<datestamp>1267385940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe so, but does it 'strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness by making government more transparent, participatory, and collaborative.'?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe so , but does it 'strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness by making government more transparent , participatory , and collaborative .
' ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe so, but does it 'strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness by making government more transparent, participatory, and collaborative.
'?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31312114</id>
	<title>Re:drugs are bad, mmkay?</title>
	<author>khayman80</author>
	<datestamp>1267380480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Getting stoned off your balls is always a worthwhile and viable policy objective.</p></div></blockquote><p>I love how this is modded <strong>Score:3, Informative</strong>.</p><p>... and I hate how my lack of mod points is keeping it from being <strong>Score:4, Insightful</strong>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Getting stoned off your balls is always a worthwhile and viable policy objective.I love how this is modded Score : 3 , Informative.... and I hate how my lack of mod points is keeping it from being Score : 4 , Insightful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Getting stoned off your balls is always a worthwhile and viable policy objective.I love how this is modded Score:3, Informative.... and I hate how my lack of mod points is keeping it from being Score:4, Insightful.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307118</id>
	<title>drugs are bad, mmkay?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267382160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The digital letdown was when many of the top ideas generated by the process were to legalize marijuana</i> <p>
Or maybe that's because it's a worthwhile and viable policy objective.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The digital letdown was when many of the top ideas generated by the process were to legalize marijuana Or maybe that 's because it 's a worthwhile and viable policy objective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The digital letdown was when many of the top ideas generated by the process were to legalize marijuana 
Or maybe that's because it's a worthwhile and viable policy objective.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31319476</id>
	<title>Re:drugs are bad, mmkay?</title>
	<author>shaitand</author>
	<datestamp>1267471680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'Politicians don't win elections by doing what's best for society... they win by doing what the majority of the people who vote want. Like it or not, the majority of the people who actually go out and vote do not approve of and will not support candidates who publicly embrace the view idea drugs aren't evil (which is why so very few ever get elected). '</p><p>I love this very naive view of our political system. The only relation the views of the voters have to political actions is what tone the senseless non-commital phrases take come election time and what tone the spin takes after a vote if someone notices.</p><p>Politicians do what they are told by the people who bought their office (the people are chattle, buy media attention, buy some good sounding spin and handlers and you get elected). They do this so that said sponsors will buy their office come re-election rather than buying it for someone else.</p><p>The problem with legalization of marijuana (which would be one of the most benign and harmless substances in the herbal supplement isle at walgreens if the FDA classified it according to their own rules), is that there is pretty much no reason for the people who buy politicians to support it and lots of reasons not to.</p><p>If you legalized marijuana, you'd also be inviting wholesale uncontrolled hemp production. The cotton and synthetic textiles industry doesn't want to see this. Marijuana is effective in treating countless diseases in a number of ways so that nixes the drug companies. Hemp fiber can reinforce vegetable based plastics to make them extremely strong, that nixes the oil industry. Marijuana is called weed for a reason, if grown in fields it would yield tons per square acre, without some form of excessive taxation legal marijuana would cost a couple dollars a pound where it now costs a couple thousand (or more). That nixs the black market drug interests. Marijuana has fewer negative side effects, is more enjoyable, and doesn't carry a hangover. That pisses off the liquor industry.</p><p>I could go one with this for quite awhile. But to name a few these industries are definitely opposed to marijuana, oil, textiles, pharma, addiction/medical, private prison, black market cartels, and alcohol. They have clear cut business interests opposed to marijuana.</p><p>If you are the conspiracy type you might suggest that anyone living off capital gains is opposed to marijuana as well. Marijuana helps people to feel happy. Happy people don't feel the need to be good consumers and buy stuff to make them happy. People who don't want 'stuff' spend more time thinking. The last thing you want if you live off the sweat of others is those others thinking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'Politicians do n't win elections by doing what 's best for society... they win by doing what the majority of the people who vote want .
Like it or not , the majority of the people who actually go out and vote do not approve of and will not support candidates who publicly embrace the view idea drugs are n't evil ( which is why so very few ever get elected ) .
'I love this very naive view of our political system .
The only relation the views of the voters have to political actions is what tone the senseless non-commital phrases take come election time and what tone the spin takes after a vote if someone notices.Politicians do what they are told by the people who bought their office ( the people are chattle , buy media attention , buy some good sounding spin and handlers and you get elected ) .
They do this so that said sponsors will buy their office come re-election rather than buying it for someone else.The problem with legalization of marijuana ( which would be one of the most benign and harmless substances in the herbal supplement isle at walgreens if the FDA classified it according to their own rules ) , is that there is pretty much no reason for the people who buy politicians to support it and lots of reasons not to.If you legalized marijuana , you 'd also be inviting wholesale uncontrolled hemp production .
The cotton and synthetic textiles industry does n't want to see this .
Marijuana is effective in treating countless diseases in a number of ways so that nixes the drug companies .
Hemp fiber can reinforce vegetable based plastics to make them extremely strong , that nixes the oil industry .
Marijuana is called weed for a reason , if grown in fields it would yield tons per square acre , without some form of excessive taxation legal marijuana would cost a couple dollars a pound where it now costs a couple thousand ( or more ) .
That nixs the black market drug interests .
Marijuana has fewer negative side effects , is more enjoyable , and does n't carry a hangover .
That pisses off the liquor industry.I could go one with this for quite awhile .
But to name a few these industries are definitely opposed to marijuana , oil , textiles , pharma , addiction/medical , private prison , black market cartels , and alcohol .
They have clear cut business interests opposed to marijuana.If you are the conspiracy type you might suggest that anyone living off capital gains is opposed to marijuana as well .
Marijuana helps people to feel happy .
Happy people do n't feel the need to be good consumers and buy stuff to make them happy .
People who do n't want 'stuff ' spend more time thinking .
The last thing you want if you live off the sweat of others is those others thinking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Politicians don't win elections by doing what's best for society... they win by doing what the majority of the people who vote want.
Like it or not, the majority of the people who actually go out and vote do not approve of and will not support candidates who publicly embrace the view idea drugs aren't evil (which is why so very few ever get elected).
'I love this very naive view of our political system.
The only relation the views of the voters have to political actions is what tone the senseless non-commital phrases take come election time and what tone the spin takes after a vote if someone notices.Politicians do what they are told by the people who bought their office (the people are chattle, buy media attention, buy some good sounding spin and handlers and you get elected).
They do this so that said sponsors will buy their office come re-election rather than buying it for someone else.The problem with legalization of marijuana (which would be one of the most benign and harmless substances in the herbal supplement isle at walgreens if the FDA classified it according to their own rules), is that there is pretty much no reason for the people who buy politicians to support it and lots of reasons not to.If you legalized marijuana, you'd also be inviting wholesale uncontrolled hemp production.
The cotton and synthetic textiles industry doesn't want to see this.
Marijuana is effective in treating countless diseases in a number of ways so that nixes the drug companies.
Hemp fiber can reinforce vegetable based plastics to make them extremely strong, that nixes the oil industry.
Marijuana is called weed for a reason, if grown in fields it would yield tons per square acre, without some form of excessive taxation legal marijuana would cost a couple dollars a pound where it now costs a couple thousand (or more).
That nixs the black market drug interests.
Marijuana has fewer negative side effects, is more enjoyable, and doesn't carry a hangover.
That pisses off the liquor industry.I could go one with this for quite awhile.
But to name a few these industries are definitely opposed to marijuana, oil, textiles, pharma, addiction/medical, private prison, black market cartels, and alcohol.
They have clear cut business interests opposed to marijuana.If you are the conspiracy type you might suggest that anyone living off capital gains is opposed to marijuana as well.
Marijuana helps people to feel happy.
Happy people don't feel the need to be good consumers and buy stuff to make them happy.
People who don't want 'stuff' spend more time thinking.
The last thing you want if you live off the sweat of others is those others thinking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307614</id>
	<title>Participatory democracy has always been</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267385640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...a big disappointment to those who wish to control society for their personal ambitions, rather than respect the popular will.  If you don't think legalizing marijuana is a critical issue, I guess the overwhelming force of public opinion isn't going to change your mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...a big disappointment to those who wish to control society for their personal ambitions , rather than respect the popular will .
If you do n't think legalizing marijuana is a critical issue , I guess the overwhelming force of public opinion is n't going to change your mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...a big disappointment to those who wish to control society for their personal ambitions, rather than respect the popular will.
If you don't think legalizing marijuana is a critical issue, I guess the overwhelming force of public opinion isn't going to change your mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31321386</id>
	<title>corporations</title>
	<author>recharged95</author>
	<datestamp>1267435740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course, all of the winning ideas will be accepted, thrown out to gov't contractors, which in turn will create solutions that drives their profit and create cost overruns and missed deadlines.
<br>
<br>
Big win for companies, not necessarily for the citizen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , all of the winning ideas will be accepted , thrown out to gov't contractors , which in turn will create solutions that drives their profit and create cost overruns and missed deadlines .
Big win for companies , not necessarily for the citizen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, all of the winning ideas will be accepted, thrown out to gov't contractors, which in turn will create solutions that drives their profit and create cost overruns and missed deadlines.
Big win for companies, not necessarily for the citizen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307338</id>
	<title>Re:drugs are bad, mmkay?</title>
	<author>GrumpySteen</author>
	<datestamp>1267383600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Legalizing marijuana is not at all viable from the point of view of an elected official.</p><p>Politicians don't win elections by doing what's best for society... they win by doing what the majority of the people who vote want.  Like it or not, the majority of the people who actually go out and vote do not approve of and will not support candidates who publicly embrace the view idea drugs aren't evil (which is why so very few ever get elected).   Until that changes, there is absolutely no chance of legalization or decriminalization of drugs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Legalizing marijuana is not at all viable from the point of view of an elected official.Politicians do n't win elections by doing what 's best for society... they win by doing what the majority of the people who vote want .
Like it or not , the majority of the people who actually go out and vote do not approve of and will not support candidates who publicly embrace the view idea drugs are n't evil ( which is why so very few ever get elected ) .
Until that changes , there is absolutely no chance of legalization or decriminalization of drugs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Legalizing marijuana is not at all viable from the point of view of an elected official.Politicians don't win elections by doing what's best for society... they win by doing what the majority of the people who vote want.
Like it or not, the majority of the people who actually go out and vote do not approve of and will not support candidates who publicly embrace the view idea drugs aren't evil (which is why so very few ever get elected).
Until that changes, there is absolutely no chance of legalization or decriminalization of drugs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31314416</id>
	<title>Isn't it obvious?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267450740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>legalize marijuana: It could not only reduce the cost of law enforcement by tens or even hundreds of billions</i></p><p>That's the "letdown" right there. Prohibition is a billion-dollar business, and the elite at the top of the power pyramid are NOT going to give that up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>legalize marijuana : It could not only reduce the cost of law enforcement by tens or even hundreds of billionsThat 's the " letdown " right there .
Prohibition is a billion-dollar business , and the elite at the top of the power pyramid are NOT going to give that up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>legalize marijuana: It could not only reduce the cost of law enforcement by tens or even hundreds of billionsThat's the "letdown" right there.
Prohibition is a billion-dollar business, and the elite at the top of the power pyramid are NOT going to give that up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307314</id>
	<title>The letdown was actually the best part</title>
	<author>Xelios</author>
	<datestamp>1267383420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It may have been a letdown in terms of the goals of the project, but I think it was pretty successful in showing how much the government actually cares about these interactions. They're not after collaboration with the public in solving problems, they're after an <i>image</i> of openness, nothing more. Sure, if they run into an idea that's easy to implement and jives with their own agendas they'll run with it, but by and large it's just a marketing campaign.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It may have been a letdown in terms of the goals of the project , but I think it was pretty successful in showing how much the government actually cares about these interactions .
They 're not after collaboration with the public in solving problems , they 're after an image of openness , nothing more .
Sure , if they run into an idea that 's easy to implement and jives with their own agendas they 'll run with it , but by and large it 's just a marketing campaign .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may have been a letdown in terms of the goals of the project, but I think it was pretty successful in showing how much the government actually cares about these interactions.
They're not after collaboration with the public in solving problems, they're after an image of openness, nothing more.
Sure, if they run into an idea that's easy to implement and jives with their own agendas they'll run with it, but by and large it's just a marketing campaign.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31313720</id>
	<title>Re:drugs are bad, mmkay?</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1267443000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>Get off my lawn!
But this being the government, they just won't get it.</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get off my lawn !
But this being the government , they just wo n't get it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get off my lawn!
But this being the government, they just won't get it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307416</id>
	<title>Get real!</title>
	<author>voodoo cheesecake</author>
	<datestamp>1267384200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Screw sharing my ideas with the incumbent. All this says to me is that they're running short on ideas and are begging for help. I say let's start a technocratic party since current policy makers have such difficulty with technical issues. We have a group of policy makers deciding the fate of the internet who probably ask their children how to configure their fucking network to get online at home.I also say legalize pot, America was founded on it anyway.. As far as other drugs are concerned, I say investigate ways to enable the countries who produce them to not have to rely on coke and heroin as cash crops and therefore take the power out of the hands of the drug lords and religious fanatics. Put that in you pipe and smoke it!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Screw sharing my ideas with the incumbent .
All this says to me is that they 're running short on ideas and are begging for help .
I say let 's start a technocratic party since current policy makers have such difficulty with technical issues .
We have a group of policy makers deciding the fate of the internet who probably ask their children how to configure their fucking network to get online at home.I also say legalize pot , America was founded on it anyway.. As far as other drugs are concerned , I say investigate ways to enable the countries who produce them to not have to rely on coke and heroin as cash crops and therefore take the power out of the hands of the drug lords and religious fanatics .
Put that in you pipe and smoke it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Screw sharing my ideas with the incumbent.
All this says to me is that they're running short on ideas and are begging for help.
I say let's start a technocratic party since current policy makers have such difficulty with technical issues.
We have a group of policy makers deciding the fate of the internet who probably ask their children how to configure their fucking network to get online at home.I also say legalize pot, America was founded on it anyway.. As far as other drugs are concerned, I say investigate ways to enable the countries who produce them to not have to rely on coke and heroin as cash crops and therefore take the power out of the hands of the drug lords and religious fanatics.
Put that in you pipe and smoke it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307954</id>
	<title>Re:drugs are bad, mmkay?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267388220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And your attitude ensures that the general public will not. Some of us, including myself, are willing to discuss the legalization of marijuana from the standpoint that it may reduce our tax burden. Time spent chasing down every degenerate who smokes or sells pot is time and money wasted. From a cost-benefit analysis, I personally see legalizing marijuana as a potential winner.</p><p>However, if you argue principle and ideals, recreational drug use is bad. I don't even think it's an arguable point, although I know many do. Alcoholism is the only example required, here is a non-addictive substance which in reasonable quantities has no significant negative long term effects. It has created a significant problem in society. You can't argue any other drug wouldn't also be bad. People want to relieve themselves from reality, and pot is just another way of doing so. The greatest fear I have with legalizing drugs are that it will increase their use, that I'll be sitting on the couch watching TV and ads for pot will be on making it seem perfectly acceptable, and I will have to explain long and hard about drug use and what is and is not allowed under my roof. That in spite of that I will be competing against a culture that increasingly thinks "doing what feels right" is an intelligent and responsible decision making process, and my kids will be sucked in to that, at least for a while. It's a sad but true fact that you have the most power to totally ruin your life when you are about 15, all it takes is for one bad decision, and some terrible luck. The net impact to society may end up costing more in the long run, and once you let this particular cat out of the bag, you will never be able to put it back in.</p><p>If you really want to be taken seriously on this, confront the economics and be willing to make concessions on principle. Drugs will continue to be villified, and drug use will continue to be viewed as a contemptible habit. No commercials/ads, restricted and heavily taxed sale, continued anti-drug propaganda, and the general feeling that by using it you are being punished. Certainly the business model will be regulated to the point where it's just profitable enough to keep the black market supressed...but it would be legal and the police won't chase you down. If you broadcast a message of this nature, you'll have a much higher chance of getting some converts, particularly on the right side of the aisle where "reduced tax burden" sounds like a patriotic obligation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And your attitude ensures that the general public will not .
Some of us , including myself , are willing to discuss the legalization of marijuana from the standpoint that it may reduce our tax burden .
Time spent chasing down every degenerate who smokes or sells pot is time and money wasted .
From a cost-benefit analysis , I personally see legalizing marijuana as a potential winner.However , if you argue principle and ideals , recreational drug use is bad .
I do n't even think it 's an arguable point , although I know many do .
Alcoholism is the only example required , here is a non-addictive substance which in reasonable quantities has no significant negative long term effects .
It has created a significant problem in society .
You ca n't argue any other drug would n't also be bad .
People want to relieve themselves from reality , and pot is just another way of doing so .
The greatest fear I have with legalizing drugs are that it will increase their use , that I 'll be sitting on the couch watching TV and ads for pot will be on making it seem perfectly acceptable , and I will have to explain long and hard about drug use and what is and is not allowed under my roof .
That in spite of that I will be competing against a culture that increasingly thinks " doing what feels right " is an intelligent and responsible decision making process , and my kids will be sucked in to that , at least for a while .
It 's a sad but true fact that you have the most power to totally ruin your life when you are about 15 , all it takes is for one bad decision , and some terrible luck .
The net impact to society may end up costing more in the long run , and once you let this particular cat out of the bag , you will never be able to put it back in.If you really want to be taken seriously on this , confront the economics and be willing to make concessions on principle .
Drugs will continue to be villified , and drug use will continue to be viewed as a contemptible habit .
No commercials/ads , restricted and heavily taxed sale , continued anti-drug propaganda , and the general feeling that by using it you are being punished .
Certainly the business model will be regulated to the point where it 's just profitable enough to keep the black market supressed...but it would be legal and the police wo n't chase you down .
If you broadcast a message of this nature , you 'll have a much higher chance of getting some converts , particularly on the right side of the aisle where " reduced tax burden " sounds like a patriotic obligation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And your attitude ensures that the general public will not.
Some of us, including myself, are willing to discuss the legalization of marijuana from the standpoint that it may reduce our tax burden.
Time spent chasing down every degenerate who smokes or sells pot is time and money wasted.
From a cost-benefit analysis, I personally see legalizing marijuana as a potential winner.However, if you argue principle and ideals, recreational drug use is bad.
I don't even think it's an arguable point, although I know many do.
Alcoholism is the only example required, here is a non-addictive substance which in reasonable quantities has no significant negative long term effects.
It has created a significant problem in society.
You can't argue any other drug wouldn't also be bad.
People want to relieve themselves from reality, and pot is just another way of doing so.
The greatest fear I have with legalizing drugs are that it will increase their use, that I'll be sitting on the couch watching TV and ads for pot will be on making it seem perfectly acceptable, and I will have to explain long and hard about drug use and what is and is not allowed under my roof.
That in spite of that I will be competing against a culture that increasingly thinks "doing what feels right" is an intelligent and responsible decision making process, and my kids will be sucked in to that, at least for a while.
It's a sad but true fact that you have the most power to totally ruin your life when you are about 15, all it takes is for one bad decision, and some terrible luck.
The net impact to society may end up costing more in the long run, and once you let this particular cat out of the bag, you will never be able to put it back in.If you really want to be taken seriously on this, confront the economics and be willing to make concessions on principle.
Drugs will continue to be villified, and drug use will continue to be viewed as a contemptible habit.
No commercials/ads, restricted and heavily taxed sale, continued anti-drug propaganda, and the general feeling that by using it you are being punished.
Certainly the business model will be regulated to the point where it's just profitable enough to keep the black market supressed...but it would be legal and the police won't chase you down.
If you broadcast a message of this nature, you'll have a much higher chance of getting some converts, particularly on the right side of the aisle where "reduced tax burden" sounds like a patriotic obligation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31308156</id>
	<title>Re:drugs are bad, mmkay?</title>
	<author>Etyme</author>
	<datestamp>1267389780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Indeed it is, and Obama has already responded to it. Remember his announcement not to enforce the drug laws for marijuana users? That's probably not enough to satisfy reform advocates, but realistically there's no way that a full repeal would pass Congress.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed it is , and Obama has already responded to it .
Remember his announcement not to enforce the drug laws for marijuana users ?
That 's probably not enough to satisfy reform advocates , but realistically there 's no way that a full repeal would pass Congress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed it is, and Obama has already responded to it.
Remember his announcement not to enforce the drug laws for marijuana users?
That's probably not enough to satisfy reform advocates, but realistically there's no way that a full repeal would pass Congress.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31308520</id>
	<title>Re:drugs are bad, mmkay?</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1267349340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>However, if you argue principle and ideals, recreational drug use is bad. </i>
</p><p>By what measure ?  Driving a car, owning a gun, a poor diet and not enough exercise (to pick some fairly common habits in the US) are far, far more likely to ruin your life than "recreational drug use".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However , if you argue principle and ideals , recreational drug use is bad .
By what measure ?
Driving a car , owning a gun , a poor diet and not enough exercise ( to pick some fairly common habits in the US ) are far , far more likely to ruin your life than " recreational drug use " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> However, if you argue principle and ideals, recreational drug use is bad.
By what measure ?
Driving a car, owning a gun, a poor diet and not enough exercise (to pick some fairly common habits in the US) are far, far more likely to ruin your life than "recreational drug use".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31309186</id>
	<title>Re:drugs are bad, mmkay?</title>
	<author>feuerfalke</author>
	<datestamp>1267354680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Continued anti-drug propaganda? Have you never looked up any kind of statistic relating to programs like DARE or anti-drug PSAs? They have absolutely no effect on whether or not kids use drugs. Period. Teenagers such as myself don't take these programs and PSAs seriously because we <em>know</em> we're being lied to. Even the dumbest pot-smoking teenager knows it.</p><p>Your assertion that pot smoking can "totally ruin your life when you are about 15" is false; "amotivational syndrome" is a <a href="http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/LIBRARY/slikker.htm" title="druglibrary.org" rel="nofollow">load of shit</a> [druglibrary.org]. Most people who smoke pot in their adolescence try it just a few times; even regular smokers only smoke for perhaps a few years before they lose interest and get on with their lives. Even lifelong smokers are capable of leading successful lives; Carl Sagan was a well-known cannabis user and advocate of its use, and has even said that cannabis has helped inspire his ideas, writings and experiences. As for the link between cannabis and psychosis, it's just that: a link. Not a causal relationship. There's no evidence at all to suggest that cannabis use <em>causes</em> psychotic disorders barring any other confounding factors - such as a genetic predisposition towards psychotic disorders. In most people, psychotic disorders, especially schizophrenia, don't show up until around the age of 19-22. It is very possible that cannabis can trigger psychotic symptoms in people who already have a predisposition, or that people with underlying psychotic disorders are drawn to drug use, or both. Either way, the statistics suggest that you'd have to stop 2,800 heavy male cannabis smokers, or 5,000 heavy female cannabis smokers, to prevent <em>one</em> case of schizophrenia.</p><p>In short... cannabis, used knowledgeably and responsibly, isn't dangerous. Anti-drug propaganda is a gigantic waste of tax dollars, and saying that "drugs will continue to be villified" and use viewed as a "contemptible habit" is nothing more than a continuation of that sort of misinformation, and an unfair, baseless discrimination against drug users. Drug use is <em>not</em> inherently irresponsible. Your example with alcoholism is exactly the crux of the issue here. You're blaming the drug (alcohol) for the problem it creates in society, even though you just said that alcohol, when used in reasonable quantities (i.e. when used responsibly) has no significant negative long-term effects. If that's the case, then how can alcohol be causing problems in society? The answer is that it doesn't. Irresponsible people cause problems in society, and drinking alcohol is merely one of many ways in which they act out irresponsibly. Irresponsible people also drive cars and kill people (even without any substances to help); shall we villify the use of cars because they cause such a problem in our society?</p><p>The vastly more important thing is to educate people on how to behave responsibly. Yes, it is possible to use cannabis responsibly, just as it is possible to use alcohol responsibly, and the important thing is to show people that it's possible to enjoy these substances - and all the other conveniences of life, like cars - as long as they are careful and responsible about it. <em>That</em> is the kind of drug education we need, not continued villification, which doesn't do anyone any good (after all, we saw how well abstinence-only sex education worked.) I hope this post has opened your eyes to a new perspective on the issue and that you will find at least some validity in what I am saying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Continued anti-drug propaganda ?
Have you never looked up any kind of statistic relating to programs like DARE or anti-drug PSAs ?
They have absolutely no effect on whether or not kids use drugs .
Period. Teenagers such as myself do n't take these programs and PSAs seriously because we know we 're being lied to .
Even the dumbest pot-smoking teenager knows it.Your assertion that pot smoking can " totally ruin your life when you are about 15 " is false ; " amotivational syndrome " is a load of shit [ druglibrary.org ] .
Most people who smoke pot in their adolescence try it just a few times ; even regular smokers only smoke for perhaps a few years before they lose interest and get on with their lives .
Even lifelong smokers are capable of leading successful lives ; Carl Sagan was a well-known cannabis user and advocate of its use , and has even said that cannabis has helped inspire his ideas , writings and experiences .
As for the link between cannabis and psychosis , it 's just that : a link .
Not a causal relationship .
There 's no evidence at all to suggest that cannabis use causes psychotic disorders barring any other confounding factors - such as a genetic predisposition towards psychotic disorders .
In most people , psychotic disorders , especially schizophrenia , do n't show up until around the age of 19-22 .
It is very possible that cannabis can trigger psychotic symptoms in people who already have a predisposition , or that people with underlying psychotic disorders are drawn to drug use , or both .
Either way , the statistics suggest that you 'd have to stop 2,800 heavy male cannabis smokers , or 5,000 heavy female cannabis smokers , to prevent one case of schizophrenia.In short... cannabis , used knowledgeably and responsibly , is n't dangerous .
Anti-drug propaganda is a gigantic waste of tax dollars , and saying that " drugs will continue to be villified " and use viewed as a " contemptible habit " is nothing more than a continuation of that sort of misinformation , and an unfair , baseless discrimination against drug users .
Drug use is not inherently irresponsible .
Your example with alcoholism is exactly the crux of the issue here .
You 're blaming the drug ( alcohol ) for the problem it creates in society , even though you just said that alcohol , when used in reasonable quantities ( i.e .
when used responsibly ) has no significant negative long-term effects .
If that 's the case , then how can alcohol be causing problems in society ?
The answer is that it does n't .
Irresponsible people cause problems in society , and drinking alcohol is merely one of many ways in which they act out irresponsibly .
Irresponsible people also drive cars and kill people ( even without any substances to help ) ; shall we villify the use of cars because they cause such a problem in our society ? The vastly more important thing is to educate people on how to behave responsibly .
Yes , it is possible to use cannabis responsibly , just as it is possible to use alcohol responsibly , and the important thing is to show people that it 's possible to enjoy these substances - and all the other conveniences of life , like cars - as long as they are careful and responsible about it .
That is the kind of drug education we need , not continued villification , which does n't do anyone any good ( after all , we saw how well abstinence-only sex education worked .
) I hope this post has opened your eyes to a new perspective on the issue and that you will find at least some validity in what I am saying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Continued anti-drug propaganda?
Have you never looked up any kind of statistic relating to programs like DARE or anti-drug PSAs?
They have absolutely no effect on whether or not kids use drugs.
Period. Teenagers such as myself don't take these programs and PSAs seriously because we know we're being lied to.
Even the dumbest pot-smoking teenager knows it.Your assertion that pot smoking can "totally ruin your life when you are about 15" is false; "amotivational syndrome" is a load of shit [druglibrary.org].
Most people who smoke pot in their adolescence try it just a few times; even regular smokers only smoke for perhaps a few years before they lose interest and get on with their lives.
Even lifelong smokers are capable of leading successful lives; Carl Sagan was a well-known cannabis user and advocate of its use, and has even said that cannabis has helped inspire his ideas, writings and experiences.
As for the link between cannabis and psychosis, it's just that: a link.
Not a causal relationship.
There's no evidence at all to suggest that cannabis use causes psychotic disorders barring any other confounding factors - such as a genetic predisposition towards psychotic disorders.
In most people, psychotic disorders, especially schizophrenia, don't show up until around the age of 19-22.
It is very possible that cannabis can trigger psychotic symptoms in people who already have a predisposition, or that people with underlying psychotic disorders are drawn to drug use, or both.
Either way, the statistics suggest that you'd have to stop 2,800 heavy male cannabis smokers, or 5,000 heavy female cannabis smokers, to prevent one case of schizophrenia.In short... cannabis, used knowledgeably and responsibly, isn't dangerous.
Anti-drug propaganda is a gigantic waste of tax dollars, and saying that "drugs will continue to be villified" and use viewed as a "contemptible habit" is nothing more than a continuation of that sort of misinformation, and an unfair, baseless discrimination against drug users.
Drug use is not inherently irresponsible.
Your example with alcoholism is exactly the crux of the issue here.
You're blaming the drug (alcohol) for the problem it creates in society, even though you just said that alcohol, when used in reasonable quantities (i.e.
when used responsibly) has no significant negative long-term effects.
If that's the case, then how can alcohol be causing problems in society?
The answer is that it doesn't.
Irresponsible people cause problems in society, and drinking alcohol is merely one of many ways in which they act out irresponsibly.
Irresponsible people also drive cars and kill people (even without any substances to help); shall we villify the use of cars because they cause such a problem in our society?The vastly more important thing is to educate people on how to behave responsibly.
Yes, it is possible to use cannabis responsibly, just as it is possible to use alcohol responsibly, and the important thing is to show people that it's possible to enjoy these substances - and all the other conveniences of life, like cars - as long as they are careful and responsible about it.
That is the kind of drug education we need, not continued villification, which doesn't do anyone any good (after all, we saw how well abstinence-only sex education worked.
) I hope this post has opened your eyes to a new perspective on the issue and that you will find at least some validity in what I am saying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31308136</id>
	<title>Re:"legalize marijuana, solve tax issues"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267389660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because they were answers to a question that wasn't asked.  They were not answers to the question that was asked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they were answers to a question that was n't asked .
They were not answers to the question that was asked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because they were answers to a question that wasn't asked.
They were not answers to the question that was asked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307458</id>
	<title>Where's the USPTO?</title>
	<author>gregben</author>
	<datestamp>1267384500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I took a look at the aggregated US Government idea site, but didn't see the<br>USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office).</p><p>The USPTO needs a lot of help as far as I'm concerned; too bad they aren't<br>accepting ideas. They do have a "feedback channel" <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/blog/feedback" title="uspto.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.uspto.gov/blog/feedback</a> [uspto.gov]<br>but it seems pretty limited.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I took a look at the aggregated US Government idea site , but did n't see theUSPTO ( United States Patent and Trademark Office ) .The USPTO needs a lot of help as far as I 'm concerned ; too bad they aren'taccepting ideas .
They do have a " feedback channel " http : //www.uspto.gov/blog/feedback [ uspto.gov ] but it seems pretty limited .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I took a look at the aggregated US Government idea site, but didn't see theUSPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office).The USPTO needs a lot of help as far as I'm concerned; too bad they aren'taccepting ideas.
They do have a "feedback channel" http://www.uspto.gov/blog/feedback [uspto.gov]but it seems pretty limited.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31308280</id>
	<title>Change!  (limited time offer)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267390620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Change!  Before March 19!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Change !
Before March 19 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Change!
Before March 19!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307142</id>
	<title>Not what they wanted to hear</title>
	<author>J'raxis</author>
	<datestamp>1267382340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The digital letdown was when many of the top ideas generated by the process were to legalize marijuana, solve tax issues and to reinvestigate Obama's birth origins.</p></div></blockquote><p>So, in other words, they didn't get the answers they wanted to hear. What a "letdown."</p><blockquote><div><p>Fast forward to February 6 and the same process has been repeated with individual federal agencies as the subject. This time the idea generation has been much more productive, with ideas such as<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div></blockquote><p>And "productive" means now they are.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The digital letdown was when many of the top ideas generated by the process were to legalize marijuana , solve tax issues and to reinvestigate Obama 's birth origins.So , in other words , they did n't get the answers they wanted to hear .
What a " letdown .
" Fast forward to February 6 and the same process has been repeated with individual federal agencies as the subject .
This time the idea generation has been much more productive , with ideas such as ...And " productive " means now they are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The digital letdown was when many of the top ideas generated by the process were to legalize marijuana, solve tax issues and to reinvestigate Obama's birth origins.So, in other words, they didn't get the answers they wanted to hear.
What a "letdown.
"Fast forward to February 6 and the same process has been repeated with individual federal agencies as the subject.
This time the idea generation has been much more productive, with ideas such as ...And "productive" means now they are.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307124</id>
	<title>My idea for the government is real simple . . .</title>
	<author>PolygamousRanchKid </author>
	<datestamp>1267382220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get off my lawn!
</p><p>But this being the government, they just won't get it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get off my lawn !
But this being the government , they just wo n't get it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get off my lawn!
But this being the government, they just won't get it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307228</id>
	<title>Hey, here's an idea:</title>
	<author>You'reJustSlashFlock</author>
	<datestamp>1267382880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about we follow the constitution?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about we follow the constitution ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about we follow the constitution?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307578</id>
	<title>Re:Not what they wanted to hear</title>
	<author>hpycmprok</author>
	<datestamp>1267385400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>The digital letdown was when many of the top ideas generated by the process were to legalize marijuana, solve tax issues and to reinvestigate Obama's birth origins.</p></div><p>So, in other words, they didn't get the answers they wanted to hear. What a "letdown."</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Fast forward to February 6 and the same process has been repeated with individual federal agencies as the subject. This time the idea generation has been much more productive, with ideas such as<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>And "productive" means now they are.</p></div><p>Perhaps it means the "birther" issue early on was conclusively and logically resolved beyond the doubt of all but the most ardent, hardened, rabid, nut-job conspiracy theorists.  And that the marijuana issue is already a well known issue, and is incrementally making good progress towards legalization at the moment.  Both issues old stuff, with only a tiny fraction of the most tenatious loud mouths beating the drum about them.</p><p>There is always the internet phenom of the crazies shouting the loudest and longest.  Just because somebody shouts louder and longer than anyone else doesn't make the ideas they shout any better.  Neither does using all caps, bold face font, exclamation points, etc. etc.  In fact the fringe usually just cause other people to go somewhere else with their ideas, thus doing a good job of regulating themselves by alienation.</p><p>Original article and related web sites being a case in point.</p><p>This doesn't mean people don't have a right to think and say what they want. It does mean that 'let down' results tend to get ignored, while more 'productive ideas' get attention.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The digital letdown was when many of the top ideas generated by the process were to legalize marijuana , solve tax issues and to reinvestigate Obama 's birth origins.So , in other words , they did n't get the answers they wanted to hear .
What a " letdown .
" Fast forward to February 6 and the same process has been repeated with individual federal agencies as the subject .
This time the idea generation has been much more productive , with ideas such as ...And " productive " means now they are.Perhaps it means the " birther " issue early on was conclusively and logically resolved beyond the doubt of all but the most ardent , hardened , rabid , nut-job conspiracy theorists .
And that the marijuana issue is already a well known issue , and is incrementally making good progress towards legalization at the moment .
Both issues old stuff , with only a tiny fraction of the most tenatious loud mouths beating the drum about them.There is always the internet phenom of the crazies shouting the loudest and longest .
Just because somebody shouts louder and longer than anyone else does n't make the ideas they shout any better .
Neither does using all caps , bold face font , exclamation points , etc .
etc. In fact the fringe usually just cause other people to go somewhere else with their ideas , thus doing a good job of regulating themselves by alienation.Original article and related web sites being a case in point.This does n't mean people do n't have a right to think and say what they want .
It does mean that 'let down ' results tend to get ignored , while more 'productive ideas ' get attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The digital letdown was when many of the top ideas generated by the process were to legalize marijuana, solve tax issues and to reinvestigate Obama's birth origins.So, in other words, they didn't get the answers they wanted to hear.
What a "letdown.
"Fast forward to February 6 and the same process has been repeated with individual federal agencies as the subject.
This time the idea generation has been much more productive, with ideas such as ...And "productive" means now they are.Perhaps it means the "birther" issue early on was conclusively and logically resolved beyond the doubt of all but the most ardent, hardened, rabid, nut-job conspiracy theorists.
And that the marijuana issue is already a well known issue, and is incrementally making good progress towards legalization at the moment.
Both issues old stuff, with only a tiny fraction of the most tenatious loud mouths beating the drum about them.There is always the internet phenom of the crazies shouting the loudest and longest.
Just because somebody shouts louder and longer than anyone else doesn't make the ideas they shout any better.
Neither does using all caps, bold face font, exclamation points, etc.
etc.  In fact the fringe usually just cause other people to go somewhere else with their ideas, thus doing a good job of regulating themselves by alienation.Original article and related web sites being a case in point.This doesn't mean people don't have a right to think and say what they want.
It does mean that 'let down' results tend to get ignored, while more 'productive ideas' get attention.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31314922</id>
	<title>Why not go further?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267453980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not go further and outsource the government? Or make it into a franchise. You could call it McGovernment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not go further and outsource the government ?
Or make it into a franchise .
You could call it McGovernment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not go further and outsource the government?
Or make it into a franchise.
You could call it McGovernment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31308266</id>
	<title>Re:"legalize marijuana, solve tax issues"</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1267390500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>legalize marijuana...</i></p><p>Gee, you're all heart... puttin' all those law enforcement personnel and bureaucrats out of work. You all completely fail to see the necessity of laws creating contraband, where now they are being used against information on a wide scale. It is merely another form of protectionism, creating scarcity to drive up its value for the local pirates. If you want to see the stuff legalized, you're going to have to vote for people that will do it. Seems fairly logical.. no?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>legalize marijuana...Gee , you 're all heart... puttin ' all those law enforcement personnel and bureaucrats out of work .
You all completely fail to see the necessity of laws creating contraband , where now they are being used against information on a wide scale .
It is merely another form of protectionism , creating scarcity to drive up its value for the local pirates .
If you want to see the stuff legalized , you 're going to have to vote for people that will do it .
Seems fairly logical.. no ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>legalize marijuana...Gee, you're all heart... puttin' all those law enforcement personnel and bureaucrats out of work.
You all completely fail to see the necessity of laws creating contraband, where now they are being used against information on a wide scale.
It is merely another form of protectionism, creating scarcity to drive up its value for the local pirates.
If you want to see the stuff legalized, you're going to have to vote for people that will do it.
Seems fairly logical.. no?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31309974</id>
	<title>Derp</title>
	<author>kothmac</author>
	<datestamp>1267360500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"... strengthen our democracy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."
<br>
But, we're not even a Democracy. Democracy isn't all it's cut out it to be anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... strengthen our democracy ... " But , we 're not even a Democracy .
Democracy is n't all it 's cut out it to be anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"... strengthen our democracy ..."

But, we're not even a Democracy.
Democracy isn't all it's cut out it to be anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31312302</id>
	<title>Re:Legalizing Mary J is Bad? 4 Good Reasons for Go</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267383300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forget one thing: Small time marijuana dealers will <em>become</em> those regulated sources. Since they finally can make their business an official business.<br>Or they can stay unofficial, and thereby be cheaper because of avoiding taxation.</p><p>But in any way, it will create more legal jobs. Also usage will go way up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forget one thing : Small time marijuana dealers will become those regulated sources .
Since they finally can make their business an official business.Or they can stay unofficial , and thereby be cheaper because of avoiding taxation.But in any way , it will create more legal jobs .
Also usage will go way up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forget one thing: Small time marijuana dealers will become those regulated sources.
Since they finally can make their business an official business.Or they can stay unofficial, and thereby be cheaper because of avoiding taxation.But in any way, it will create more legal jobs.
Also usage will go way up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31308550</id>
	<title>ACTA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267349580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder how many ideas were to release the ACTA text.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how many ideas were to release the ACTA text .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how many ideas were to release the ACTA text.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31310912</id>
	<title>Re:Seeing the little picture</title>
	<author>npsimons</author>
	<datestamp>1267368000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Big, sweeping solutions like "legalize marijuana" seem like panaceas, but in fact the government is a vast, complex entity, like the company you work for scaled up by a factor of 1,000. Ending the war on drugs is certainly a good idea, but if you really want to fix government, it helps to know something about government, and not just</p></div></blockquote><p>I don't think that anyone is arguing that legalizing marijuana would be a panacea.  Much like those who say organized religion should be abolished don't think it will solve all the worlds' ills.  Both are good ideas, and the main reason people want to see them done is that they are quick and easy ways to eliminate big problems.  It's sort of like profiling code, where making a small change to one piece of code might cut the overall run time in half.  Sure, it won't *eliminate* the run time completely, but it's such an easy thing to do, that will help so much, why not do it?  The only reason it isn't being done is some political bullshit.  To continue the analogy, it's as if you found the slow piece of code, found a fix, but then your manager said "oh no, we can't do that, it might <em>upset</em> our users." even when the user survey obviously says they all think your code runs like a dog.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Big , sweeping solutions like " legalize marijuana " seem like panaceas , but in fact the government is a vast , complex entity , like the company you work for scaled up by a factor of 1,000 .
Ending the war on drugs is certainly a good idea , but if you really want to fix government , it helps to know something about government , and not justI do n't think that anyone is arguing that legalizing marijuana would be a panacea .
Much like those who say organized religion should be abolished do n't think it will solve all the worlds ' ills .
Both are good ideas , and the main reason people want to see them done is that they are quick and easy ways to eliminate big problems .
It 's sort of like profiling code , where making a small change to one piece of code might cut the overall run time in half .
Sure , it wo n't * eliminate * the run time completely , but it 's such an easy thing to do , that will help so much , why not do it ?
The only reason it is n't being done is some political bullshit .
To continue the analogy , it 's as if you found the slow piece of code , found a fix , but then your manager said " oh no , we ca n't do that , it might upset our users .
" even when the user survey obviously says they all think your code runs like a dog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Big, sweeping solutions like "legalize marijuana" seem like panaceas, but in fact the government is a vast, complex entity, like the company you work for scaled up by a factor of 1,000.
Ending the war on drugs is certainly a good idea, but if you really want to fix government, it helps to know something about government, and not justI don't think that anyone is arguing that legalizing marijuana would be a panacea.
Much like those who say organized religion should be abolished don't think it will solve all the worlds' ills.
Both are good ideas, and the main reason people want to see them done is that they are quick and easy ways to eliminate big problems.
It's sort of like profiling code, where making a small change to one piece of code might cut the overall run time in half.
Sure, it won't *eliminate* the run time completely, but it's such an easy thing to do, that will help so much, why not do it?
The only reason it isn't being done is some political bullshit.
To continue the analogy, it's as if you found the slow piece of code, found a fix, but then your manager said "oh no, we can't do that, it might upset our users.
" even when the user survey obviously says they all think your code runs like a dog.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31312232</id>
	<title>Free and Open Government</title>
	<author>thesquire</author>
	<datestamp>1267382220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who's kidding whom?  Government can be improved by reducing the numbers of thieving politicians and incompetent and bungling bureaucrats interfering with our lives, not by thinking of ways to employ more of them.  My proposal is to amend the constitution to require that 5 percent of politicians and bureaucrats be fired every 4 years, and only where absolutely necessary for the continued functioning of essential services, be replaced.  Another improvement would be to strengthen freedom of information laws and compliance requirements by imposing substantial penalties, including criminal prosecution, fines and imprisonment, in the worst cases, as well as subjecting them to court actions for punitive damages, brought as either suits by individuals and class action suits, for failure to disclose information within a reasonable time.  A further improvement would be to make politicians in office, especially heads of government departments, governors, presidents,  and prime ministers, and their chief advisors, personally liable to those harmed, for corruption under their watches, and for making dishonest or stupid decisions, including enacting laws, that harm people, businesses and classes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who 's kidding whom ?
Government can be improved by reducing the numbers of thieving politicians and incompetent and bungling bureaucrats interfering with our lives , not by thinking of ways to employ more of them .
My proposal is to amend the constitution to require that 5 percent of politicians and bureaucrats be fired every 4 years , and only where absolutely necessary for the continued functioning of essential services , be replaced .
Another improvement would be to strengthen freedom of information laws and compliance requirements by imposing substantial penalties , including criminal prosecution , fines and imprisonment , in the worst cases , as well as subjecting them to court actions for punitive damages , brought as either suits by individuals and class action suits , for failure to disclose information within a reasonable time .
A further improvement would be to make politicians in office , especially heads of government departments , governors , presidents , and prime ministers , and their chief advisors , personally liable to those harmed , for corruption under their watches , and for making dishonest or stupid decisions , including enacting laws , that harm people , businesses and classes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who's kidding whom?
Government can be improved by reducing the numbers of thieving politicians and incompetent and bungling bureaucrats interfering with our lives, not by thinking of ways to employ more of them.
My proposal is to amend the constitution to require that 5 percent of politicians and bureaucrats be fired every 4 years, and only where absolutely necessary for the continued functioning of essential services, be replaced.
Another improvement would be to strengthen freedom of information laws and compliance requirements by imposing substantial penalties, including criminal prosecution, fines and imprisonment, in the worst cases, as well as subjecting them to court actions for punitive damages, brought as either suits by individuals and class action suits, for failure to disclose information within a reasonable time.
A further improvement would be to make politicians in office, especially heads of government departments, governors, presidents,  and prime ministers, and their chief advisors, personally liable to those harmed, for corruption under their watches, and for making dishonest or stupid decisions, including enacting laws, that harm people, businesses and classes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31310988</id>
	<title>Fab Labs everywhere, basic income, vitamin D</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1267368660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"21,000 Flexible Public Fabrication Facilities across the USA"<br><a href="http://opengov.ideascale.com/a/dtd/8412-4049" title="ideascale.com">http://opengov.ideascale.com/a/dtd/8412-4049</a> [ideascale.com]</p><p>Also:<br>"Revisit the Triple Revolution Memorandum sent to President Johnson"<br><a href="http://opengov.ideascale.com/a/dtd/8402-4049" title="ideascale.com">http://opengov.ideascale.com/a/dtd/8402-4049</a> [ideascale.com]</p><p>Also:<br>"Something I tried to post here but did not appear:<br>"Policy Forum on Public Access to Federally Funded Research: Implementation""<br><a href="http://www.cnewmark.com/2009/12/making-govt-work-a-huge-step.html#comments" title="cnewmark.com">http://www.cnewmark.com/2009/12/making-govt-work-a-huge-step.html#comments</a> [cnewmark.com]<br>"""<br>Summary: This topic of how government funds academic research is fairly inseparable from related STEM education issues that touch on every aspect of the USA as it becomes a 21st-century society heavily dependent on science and technology while at the same time facing an employment crisis (in part from automation and better design causing structural unemployment -- even within academia and related research institutions). The essay explores problems with the current research funding model (of which open publication is just one part) with connections to all levels of the K-emeritus academic enterprise. Then it points towards some solutions like a "basic income" to help the USA transition to a full-fledged 21st century "post-scarcity" society where giving information away under open licenses would be the default in most situations.<br>"""</p><p>And I've posted stuff on how treating vitamin D deficiency could save hundreds of billions of dollars a year in US medical costs:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml" title="vitamindcouncil.org">http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml</a> [vitamindcouncil.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" 21,000 Flexible Public Fabrication Facilities across the USA " http : //opengov.ideascale.com/a/dtd/8412-4049 [ ideascale.com ] Also : " Revisit the Triple Revolution Memorandum sent to President Johnson " http : //opengov.ideascale.com/a/dtd/8402-4049 [ ideascale.com ] Also : " Something I tried to post here but did not appear : " Policy Forum on Public Access to Federally Funded Research : Implementation " " http : //www.cnewmark.com/2009/12/making-govt-work-a-huge-step.html # comments [ cnewmark.com ] " " " Summary : This topic of how government funds academic research is fairly inseparable from related STEM education issues that touch on every aspect of the USA as it becomes a 21st-century society heavily dependent on science and technology while at the same time facing an employment crisis ( in part from automation and better design causing structural unemployment -- even within academia and related research institutions ) .
The essay explores problems with the current research funding model ( of which open publication is just one part ) with connections to all levels of the K-emeritus academic enterprise .
Then it points towards some solutions like a " basic income " to help the USA transition to a full-fledged 21st century " post-scarcity " society where giving information away under open licenses would be the default in most situations .
" " " And I 've posted stuff on how treating vitamin D deficiency could save hundreds of billions of dollars a year in US medical costs :     http : //www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml [ vitamindcouncil.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"21,000 Flexible Public Fabrication Facilities across the USA"http://opengov.ideascale.com/a/dtd/8412-4049 [ideascale.com]Also:"Revisit the Triple Revolution Memorandum sent to President Johnson"http://opengov.ideascale.com/a/dtd/8402-4049 [ideascale.com]Also:"Something I tried to post here but did not appear:"Policy Forum on Public Access to Federally Funded Research: Implementation""http://www.cnewmark.com/2009/12/making-govt-work-a-huge-step.html#comments [cnewmark.com]"""Summary: This topic of how government funds academic research is fairly inseparable from related STEM education issues that touch on every aspect of the USA as it becomes a 21st-century society heavily dependent on science and technology while at the same time facing an employment crisis (in part from automation and better design causing structural unemployment -- even within academia and related research institutions).
The essay explores problems with the current research funding model (of which open publication is just one part) with connections to all levels of the K-emeritus academic enterprise.
Then it points towards some solutions like a "basic income" to help the USA transition to a full-fledged 21st century "post-scarcity" society where giving information away under open licenses would be the default in most situations.
"""And I've posted stuff on how treating vitamin D deficiency could save hundreds of billions of dollars a year in US medical costs:
    http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml [vitamindcouncil.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31308308</id>
	<title>The critics distant from their democracy...</title>
	<author>jonverve</author>
	<datestamp>1267347660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>..no matter how frusterated they are, are giving up their right to be involved in their democracy.  Those of you who flame, whens the last time you attended a PAC or somehow worked for some cause you are passionate about?  You know Erin Brockovich was a true story about a woman without formal law education, right?<br> <br>

&ldquo;It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.&rdquo;  - Teddy Roosevelt</htmltext>
<tokenext>..no matter how frusterated they are , are giving up their right to be involved in their democracy .
Those of you who flame , whens the last time you attended a PAC or somehow worked for some cause you are passionate about ?
You know Erin Brockovich was a true story about a woman without formal law education , right ?
   It is not the critic who counts ; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles , or where the doer of deeds could have done them better .
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena , whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood , who strives valiantly ; who errs and comes short again and again ; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings ; but who does actually strive to do the deed ; who knows the great enthusiasm , the great devotion , who spends himself in a worthy cause , who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst , if he fails , at least he fails while daring greatly .
So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.    - Teddy Roosevelt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..no matter how frusterated they are, are giving up their right to be involved in their democracy.
Those of you who flame, whens the last time you attended a PAC or somehow worked for some cause you are passionate about?
You know Erin Brockovich was a true story about a woman without formal law education, right?
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly.
So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”  - Teddy Roosevelt</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307506</id>
	<title>Re:"legalize marijuana, solve tax issues"</title>
	<author>mjwalshe</author>
	<datestamp>1267384860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>because thease sort of systems attract the nutters out of all proportion to the actual support for a particular issues.</htmltext>
<tokenext>because thease sort of systems attract the nutters out of all proportion to the actual support for a particular issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because thease sort of systems attract the nutters out of all proportion to the actual support for a particular issues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31308292</id>
	<title>Re:drugs are bad, mmkay?</title>
	<author>atchijov</author>
	<datestamp>1267390740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you really believe that legalizing pot will bring any measurable improvements to US?  There are thousands other problems which need to be solved before we even get to the point when thinking about legalizing marijuana should appear at the very end of our TODO list.  If you start with pot, the only possible result is even further polarization of US population (and congress) which will make it even more difficult to make anything happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you really believe that legalizing pot will bring any measurable improvements to US ?
There are thousands other problems which need to be solved before we even get to the point when thinking about legalizing marijuana should appear at the very end of our TODO list .
If you start with pot , the only possible result is even further polarization of US population ( and congress ) which will make it even more difficult to make anything happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you really believe that legalizing pot will bring any measurable improvements to US?
There are thousands other problems which need to be solved before we even get to the point when thinking about legalizing marijuana should appear at the very end of our TODO list.
If you start with pot, the only possible result is even further polarization of US population (and congress) which will make it even more difficult to make anything happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31308072</id>
	<title>range voting</title>
	<author>Garble Snarky</author>
	<datestamp>1267389180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does anyone have any idea which agency would be responsible for implementing a change in ballot methods (range voting/runoff/whatever)? The little I have read about these has convinced me that any improvement to our current voting system would be incredibly helpful. Which site would this idea best be submitted to?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone have any idea which agency would be responsible for implementing a change in ballot methods ( range voting/runoff/whatever ) ?
The little I have read about these has convinced me that any improvement to our current voting system would be incredibly helpful .
Which site would this idea best be submitted to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone have any idea which agency would be responsible for implementing a change in ballot methods (range voting/runoff/whatever)?
The little I have read about these has convinced me that any improvement to our current voting system would be incredibly helpful.
Which site would this idea best be submitted to?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31309410</id>
	<title>Re:drugs are bad, mmkay?</title>
	<author>Miseph</author>
	<datestamp>1267356360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Alcoholism is the only example required, here is a non-addictive substance"</p><p>I'm going to stop you right there. Alcohol is absolutely an addictive substance, there is a known and well-documented (if not entirely understood) physiological component to alcohol addiction. Alcohol is also fairly easy to consume in lethal quantities through normal usage, and it is quite common for people to do so, particularly people in their teens and 20s. Neither of those are even remotely true for marijuana (psychological addiction has been reported, but there is no credible evidence suggesting a physiologically addictive property, overdose is theoretically possible, but would require consuming such a vast quantity of the substance that it is considered practically impossible).</p><p>Alcohol is, by all rational measures, FAR more dangerous than marijuana. They aren't even in the same league.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Alcoholism is the only example required , here is a non-addictive substance " I 'm going to stop you right there .
Alcohol is absolutely an addictive substance , there is a known and well-documented ( if not entirely understood ) physiological component to alcohol addiction .
Alcohol is also fairly easy to consume in lethal quantities through normal usage , and it is quite common for people to do so , particularly people in their teens and 20s .
Neither of those are even remotely true for marijuana ( psychological addiction has been reported , but there is no credible evidence suggesting a physiologically addictive property , overdose is theoretically possible , but would require consuming such a vast quantity of the substance that it is considered practically impossible ) .Alcohol is , by all rational measures , FAR more dangerous than marijuana .
They are n't even in the same league .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Alcoholism is the only example required, here is a non-addictive substance"I'm going to stop you right there.
Alcohol is absolutely an addictive substance, there is a known and well-documented (if not entirely understood) physiological component to alcohol addiction.
Alcohol is also fairly easy to consume in lethal quantities through normal usage, and it is quite common for people to do so, particularly people in their teens and 20s.
Neither of those are even remotely true for marijuana (psychological addiction has been reported, but there is no credible evidence suggesting a physiologically addictive property, overdose is theoretically possible, but would require consuming such a vast quantity of the substance that it is considered practically impossible).Alcohol is, by all rational measures, FAR more dangerous than marijuana.
They aren't even in the same league.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31313128</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1267435800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Exactly what type of fair, democratic system do you propose where 36\% of the people supporting an issue is enough to get it passed? I don't see how any sort of system, no matter how many parties there are, could possibly be more democratic by allowing 36\% of the nation to pass a measure that 64\% don't want.  It seems to me the system is not the problem, and if you all feel so passionately about the issue you should be debating it, educating people on your viewpoint and rallying more support for it.But what do I know, maybe trying to convince people to rewrite our entire system of democracy and governance that countless people have died fighting for would be waaaaay easier then convincing them that legalizing some mary jay would be beneficial for the nation.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly what type of fair , democratic system do you propose where 36 \ % of the people supporting an issue is enough to get it passed ?
I do n't see how any sort of system , no matter how many parties there are , could possibly be more democratic by allowing 36 \ % of the nation to pass a measure that 64 \ % do n't want .
It seems to me the system is not the problem , and if you all feel so passionately about the issue you should be debating it , educating people on your viewpoint and rallying more support for it.But what do I know , maybe trying to convince people to rewrite our entire system of democracy and governance that countless people have died fighting for would be waaaaay easier then convincing them that legalizing some mary jay would be beneficial for the nation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly what type of fair, democratic system do you propose where 36\% of the people supporting an issue is enough to get it passed?
I don't see how any sort of system, no matter how many parties there are, could possibly be more democratic by allowing 36\% of the nation to pass a measure that 64\% don't want.
It seems to me the system is not the problem, and if you all feel so passionately about the issue you should be debating it, educating people on your viewpoint and rallying more support for it.But what do I know, maybe trying to convince people to rewrite our entire system of democracy and governance that countless people have died fighting for would be waaaaay easier then convincing them that legalizing some mary jay would be beneficial for the nation.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307258</id>
	<title>Re:drugs are bad, mmkay?</title>
	<author>clang\_jangle</author>
	<datestamp>1267383180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly, the position is "we're open to hearing anything -- except of course repealing prohibition, or actually representing the people in general". That's the whole problem with democracy in the US today, it doesn't truly exist on any meaningful scale. This whole "open government" thing is just feel-good theater to help the people maintain their denial about the fact that they live in a corporate oligarchy which is rapidly becoming feudalism. The difference between political parties comes down to which "special interests" own them, while the people have no representation. We are so screwed...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly , the position is " we 're open to hearing anything -- except of course repealing prohibition , or actually representing the people in general " .
That 's the whole problem with democracy in the US today , it does n't truly exist on any meaningful scale .
This whole " open government " thing is just feel-good theater to help the people maintain their denial about the fact that they live in a corporate oligarchy which is rapidly becoming feudalism .
The difference between political parties comes down to which " special interests " own them , while the people have no representation .
We are so screwed.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly, the position is "we're open to hearing anything -- except of course repealing prohibition, or actually representing the people in general".
That's the whole problem with democracy in the US today, it doesn't truly exist on any meaningful scale.
This whole "open government" thing is just feel-good theater to help the people maintain their denial about the fact that they live in a corporate oligarchy which is rapidly becoming feudalism.
The difference between political parties comes down to which "special interests" own them, while the people have no representation.
We are so screwed...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307936</id>
	<title>Re:Legalizing Mary J is Bad? 4 Good Reasons for Go</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267388040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>1) Reduces prison population -&gt; reduces Government budget/deficit
    - Too bad that prison is an industry, decriminalizing pot would hurt that industry at an average of $25,000 a year per person.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Reduces prison population - &gt; reduces Government budget/deficit - Too bad that prison is an industry , decriminalizing pot would hurt that industry at an average of $ 25,000 a year per person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Reduces prison population -&gt; reduces Government budget/deficit
    - Too bad that prison is an industry, decriminalizing pot would hurt that industry at an average of $25,000 a year per person.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307384</id>
	<title>aldawaghranet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267384020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It may have been a letdown in terms of the goals of the project, but I think it was pretty successful
<a href="http://aldawaghranet.com/" title="aldawaghranet.com" rel="nofollow">http://aldawaghranet.com/</a> [aldawaghranet.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>It may have been a letdown in terms of the goals of the project , but I think it was pretty successful http : //aldawaghranet.com/ [ aldawaghranet.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may have been a letdown in terms of the goals of the project, but I think it was pretty successful
http://aldawaghranet.com/ [aldawaghranet.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307162</id>
	<title>"legalize marijuana, solve tax issues"</title>
	<author>Nadaka</author>
	<datestamp>1267382520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Obama birth record bs I can understand... but why are "legalize marijuana, solve tax issues" big letdowns?</p><p>legalize marijuana: It could not only reduce the cost of law enforcement by tens or even hundreds of billions but provide valuable new jobs and revenue streams for taxation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Obama birth record bs I can understand... but why are " legalize marijuana , solve tax issues " big letdowns ? legalize marijuana : It could not only reduce the cost of law enforcement by tens or even hundreds of billions but provide valuable new jobs and revenue streams for taxation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Obama birth record bs I can understand... but why are "legalize marijuana, solve tax issues" big letdowns?legalize marijuana: It could not only reduce the cost of law enforcement by tens or even hundreds of billions but provide valuable new jobs and revenue streams for taxation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31309340</id>
	<title>The Legislative branch is also missing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267355700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I for one would like the proceedings of the Senate and Congress available on the Internet. Preferably in an open format<br>It makes no sense that Congress could make a concession to C-span and that C-span can copyright the video.<br>All works created by the U.S. Government are in the public domain, are they not?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one would like the proceedings of the Senate and Congress available on the Internet .
Preferably in an open formatIt makes no sense that Congress could make a concession to C-span and that C-span can copyright the video.All works created by the U.S. Government are in the public domain , are they not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one would like the proceedings of the Senate and Congress available on the Internet.
Preferably in an open formatIt makes no sense that Congress could make a concession to C-span and that C-span can copyright the video.All works created by the U.S. Government are in the public domain, are they not?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31308316</id>
	<title>Re:drugs are bad, mmkay?</title>
	<author>GrumpySteen</author>
	<datestamp>1267347660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Put away your straw man arguments and re-read what I actually wrote.</p><p>I said nothing negative about drugs and I certainly did not say the issue shouldn't be discussed.  If anything, my comment suggests that the best way to change things is to change the mindset of the voting public which can only be done through discussion and education.</p><p>You have some interesting things to say, but you should try using them in a reply to someone who actually has an opposing viewpoint.  Preaching to the choir certainly isn't going to accomplish anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Put away your straw man arguments and re-read what I actually wrote.I said nothing negative about drugs and I certainly did not say the issue should n't be discussed .
If anything , my comment suggests that the best way to change things is to change the mindset of the voting public which can only be done through discussion and education.You have some interesting things to say , but you should try using them in a reply to someone who actually has an opposing viewpoint .
Preaching to the choir certainly is n't going to accomplish anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Put away your straw man arguments and re-read what I actually wrote.I said nothing negative about drugs and I certainly did not say the issue shouldn't be discussed.
If anything, my comment suggests that the best way to change things is to change the mindset of the voting public which can only be done through discussion and education.You have some interesting things to say, but you should try using them in a reply to someone who actually has an opposing viewpoint.
Preaching to the choir certainly isn't going to accomplish anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307340</id>
	<title>Re:Not what they wanted to hear</title>
	<author>kestasjk</author>
	<datestamp>1267383660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>The digital letdown was when many of the top ideas generated by the process were to legalize marijuana, solve tax issues and to reinvestigate Obama's birth origins.</p></div></blockquote><p>So, in other words, they didn't get the answers they wanted to hear. What a "letdown."</p></div><p>I don't know what "solve tax issues" means, but legalizing marijuana and investigating Obama's birth certificate are hardly innovative ideas promoting more effective governance, even if you think they're worthwhile it's stuff everyone has heard of, and the intent wasn't to give tired ideas a new platform</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The digital letdown was when many of the top ideas generated by the process were to legalize marijuana , solve tax issues and to reinvestigate Obama 's birth origins.So , in other words , they did n't get the answers they wanted to hear .
What a " letdown .
" I do n't know what " solve tax issues " means , but legalizing marijuana and investigating Obama 's birth certificate are hardly innovative ideas promoting more effective governance , even if you think they 're worthwhile it 's stuff everyone has heard of , and the intent was n't to give tired ideas a new platform</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The digital letdown was when many of the top ideas generated by the process were to legalize marijuana, solve tax issues and to reinvestigate Obama's birth origins.So, in other words, they didn't get the answers they wanted to hear.
What a "letdown.
"I don't know what "solve tax issues" means, but legalizing marijuana and investigating Obama's birth certificate are hardly innovative ideas promoting more effective governance, even if you think they're worthwhile it's stuff everyone has heard of, and the intent wasn't to give tired ideas a new platform
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307318</id>
	<title>Legalizing Mary J is Bad?  4 Good Reasons for Gov.</title>
	<author>r\_jensen11</author>
	<datestamp>1267383480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1)  Reduces prison population -&gt; reduces Government budget/deficit<br>2)  Introduces new tax revenue -&gt; increases government revenues &amp; reduces deficit<br>3)  Reduces crime rate - small-time marijuana dealers no longer have any customers as it's more convenient for smokers to buy from regulated sources, so small-time marijuana dealers move onto other things (some will move to harder drugs, but many who would move are already dealing those)<br>4)  Whoever moves to legalize it first gains many votes from the millions of adults who regularly smoke it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Reduces prison population - &gt; reduces Government budget/deficit2 ) Introduces new tax revenue - &gt; increases government revenues &amp; reduces deficit3 ) Reduces crime rate - small-time marijuana dealers no longer have any customers as it 's more convenient for smokers to buy from regulated sources , so small-time marijuana dealers move onto other things ( some will move to harder drugs , but many who would move are already dealing those ) 4 ) Whoever moves to legalize it first gains many votes from the millions of adults who regularly smoke it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1)  Reduces prison population -&gt; reduces Government budget/deficit2)  Introduces new tax revenue -&gt; increases government revenues &amp; reduces deficit3)  Reduces crime rate - small-time marijuana dealers no longer have any customers as it's more convenient for smokers to buy from regulated sources, so small-time marijuana dealers move onto other things (some will move to harder drugs, but many who would move are already dealing those)4)  Whoever moves to legalize it first gains many votes from the millions of adults who regularly smoke it</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31311390</id>
	<title>Re:Legalizing Mary J is Bad? 4 Good Reasons for Go</title>
	<author>Coryoth</author>
	<datestamp>1267372200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idea itself may not be bad, but as a suggestion to open.gov it is bad simply because it is completely politically infeasible to implement at this time. You may as well be wishing for ponies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea itself may not be bad , but as a suggestion to open.gov it is bad simply because it is completely politically infeasible to implement at this time .
You may as well be wishing for ponies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea itself may not be bad, but as a suggestion to open.gov it is bad simply because it is completely politically infeasible to implement at this time.
You may as well be wishing for ponies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31308584</id>
	<title>US Open?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267349760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Golf or tennis?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Golf or tennis ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Golf or tennis?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307278</id>
	<title>The NASA Guys Aren't "Hackers"</title>
	<author>RobotRunAmok</author>
	<datestamp>1267383240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Words means something.</p><p>They may not mean what you want them to mean, and they may not mean what they meant for about seven months in 1993, but they still mean something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Words means something.They may not mean what you want them to mean , and they may not mean what they meant for about seven months in 1993 , but they still mean something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Words means something.They may not mean what you want them to mean, and they may not mean what they meant for about seven months in 1993, but they still mean something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31313184</id>
	<title>Re:"legalize marijuana, solve tax issues"</title>
	<author>Eightbitgnosis</author>
	<datestamp>1267436400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because these "open questions" are a bunch of crap and they'll just pick their own talking points to respond to anyway.
<br> <br>
That's one reason why Washington state isn't going to take it any longer and we're collecting signatures for a 2010 vote to remove all "penalties for possession, cultivation, and sale of marijuana by those 18 and over". Oh, and people in Washington have been way excited to sign.
<br> <br>
<a href="http://sensiblewashington.org/" title="sensiblewashington.org" rel="nofollow">http://sensiblewashington.org/</a> [sensiblewashington.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because these " open questions " are a bunch of crap and they 'll just pick their own talking points to respond to anyway .
That 's one reason why Washington state is n't going to take it any longer and we 're collecting signatures for a 2010 vote to remove all " penalties for possession , cultivation , and sale of marijuana by those 18 and over " .
Oh , and people in Washington have been way excited to sign .
http : //sensiblewashington.org/ [ sensiblewashington.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because these "open questions" are a bunch of crap and they'll just pick their own talking points to respond to anyway.
That's one reason why Washington state isn't going to take it any longer and we're collecting signatures for a 2010 vote to remove all "penalties for possession, cultivation, and sale of marijuana by those 18 and over".
Oh, and people in Washington have been way excited to sign.
http://sensiblewashington.org/ [sensiblewashington.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31319664</id>
	<title>Re:drugs are bad, mmkay?</title>
	<author>shaitand</author>
	<datestamp>1267472280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Alcoholism is the only example required, here is a non-addictive substance which in reasonable quantities has no significant negative long term effects."</p><p>I assume you are referring to marijuana. Alcohol is highly addictive. It isn't as easy to become addicted in the first place but once addicted the link is likened to Heroin. You can die from alcohol withdrawal once addicted.</p><p>"Time spent chasing down every degenerate who smokes or sells pot is time and money wasted."</p><p>People who smoke pot are not degenerates. Many of them are designing rockets at NASA. Links between marijuana and laziness or permanent memory problems (there is a short term memory reduction but even with years of use it goes away after as little as a month of discontinuing use, and afterward there is actually a net increase in memory functions, people who use marijuana infrequently actually have increased memory function not decreased) have been completely debunked.</p><p>Lazy degenerates may sit around smoking pot all day but make no mistake, those degenerates would be sitting around doing nothing productive if you took the pot away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Alcoholism is the only example required , here is a non-addictive substance which in reasonable quantities has no significant negative long term effects .
" I assume you are referring to marijuana .
Alcohol is highly addictive .
It is n't as easy to become addicted in the first place but once addicted the link is likened to Heroin .
You can die from alcohol withdrawal once addicted .
" Time spent chasing down every degenerate who smokes or sells pot is time and money wasted .
" People who smoke pot are not degenerates .
Many of them are designing rockets at NASA .
Links between marijuana and laziness or permanent memory problems ( there is a short term memory reduction but even with years of use it goes away after as little as a month of discontinuing use , and afterward there is actually a net increase in memory functions , people who use marijuana infrequently actually have increased memory function not decreased ) have been completely debunked.Lazy degenerates may sit around smoking pot all day but make no mistake , those degenerates would be sitting around doing nothing productive if you took the pot away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Alcoholism is the only example required, here is a non-addictive substance which in reasonable quantities has no significant negative long term effects.
"I assume you are referring to marijuana.
Alcohol is highly addictive.
It isn't as easy to become addicted in the first place but once addicted the link is likened to Heroin.
You can die from alcohol withdrawal once addicted.
"Time spent chasing down every degenerate who smokes or sells pot is time and money wasted.
"People who smoke pot are not degenerates.
Many of them are designing rockets at NASA.
Links between marijuana and laziness or permanent memory problems (there is a short term memory reduction but even with years of use it goes away after as little as a month of discontinuing use, and afterward there is actually a net increase in memory functions, people who use marijuana infrequently actually have increased memory function not decreased) have been completely debunked.Lazy degenerates may sit around smoking pot all day but make no mistake, those degenerates would be sitting around doing nothing productive if you took the pot away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307422</id>
	<title>Re:Not what they wanted to hear</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267384200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oddly enough, the two issues that rose to the top are related - most of the birthers would be helped greatly by a toke or two. Either that, or a jumbo shipment of tinfoil hats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oddly enough , the two issues that rose to the top are related - most of the birthers would be helped greatly by a toke or two .
Either that , or a jumbo shipment of tinfoil hats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oddly enough, the two issues that rose to the top are related - most of the birthers would be helped greatly by a toke or two.
Either that, or a jumbo shipment of tinfoil hats.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31311442</id>
	<title>Re:drugs are bad, mmkay?</title>
	<author>Kitkoan</author>
	<datestamp>1267372680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>The digital letdown was when many of the top ideas generated by the process were to legalize marijuana</i> </p><p>
Or maybe that's because it's a worthwhile and viable policy objective.</p></div><p>I agree with you there. Marijuana (to my knowledge) was the last natural (as opposed to synthetics and chemical) 'mind altering' substance. Cocaine was outlawed in 1914 with the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act, Opium was made illegal in 1905, alcohol was illegal in 1920 (Prohibition). Marijuana on the other hand was made illegal in 1937 with the  Marihuana Tax Act, and while it was a tax the government wouldn't accept the money effectively making it illegal. It was also followed with the Uniform State Narcotic Act</p><p>It was also made illegal for the wrong reasons, with massive help from Harry Anslinger. Some of the reasons where financial gains, as people like Harry Anslinger's wife's family, the Mellon family who owned Mellon Financial Corporation. The Mellon Financial Corporation had invested in DuPont who had synthetic products that competed against hemp, amongst others, and that helped since hemp and marijuana aren't very different (they are, but not like and apple to an orange). Another reason was racism, and Harry Anslinger was also a virulent racist, and at the time spun marijuana to be considered a 'color man's' drug, noted of being used by black jazz players and Mexican immigrants (while I'm aware it was not limited to certain people, it was how it was spun at the time). It was also had the use of very distorted 'facts' to help, one of them being the story in Scientific America in March of 1936 ( <a href="http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/menaces\_youth.htm" title="druglibrary.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/menaces\_youth.htm</a> [druglibrary.org] ) that stated when marijuana was 'combined with intoxicants, it often makes the smoker vicious, with a desire to fight and kill'. It was also seen as a stepping stone in Harry Anslinger's future when he entered the Federal Bureau of Narcotics to outlaw it. These are of course just some of the reasons.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The digital letdown was when many of the top ideas generated by the process were to legalize marijuana Or maybe that 's because it 's a worthwhile and viable policy objective.I agree with you there .
Marijuana ( to my knowledge ) was the last natural ( as opposed to synthetics and chemical ) 'mind altering ' substance .
Cocaine was outlawed in 1914 with the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act , Opium was made illegal in 1905 , alcohol was illegal in 1920 ( Prohibition ) .
Marijuana on the other hand was made illegal in 1937 with the Marihuana Tax Act , and while it was a tax the government would n't accept the money effectively making it illegal .
It was also followed with the Uniform State Narcotic ActIt was also made illegal for the wrong reasons , with massive help from Harry Anslinger .
Some of the reasons where financial gains , as people like Harry Anslinger 's wife 's family , the Mellon family who owned Mellon Financial Corporation .
The Mellon Financial Corporation had invested in DuPont who had synthetic products that competed against hemp , amongst others , and that helped since hemp and marijuana are n't very different ( they are , but not like and apple to an orange ) .
Another reason was racism , and Harry Anslinger was also a virulent racist , and at the time spun marijuana to be considered a 'color man 's ' drug , noted of being used by black jazz players and Mexican immigrants ( while I 'm aware it was not limited to certain people , it was how it was spun at the time ) .
It was also had the use of very distorted 'facts ' to help , one of them being the story in Scientific America in March of 1936 ( http : //www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/menaces \ _youth.htm [ druglibrary.org ] ) that stated when marijuana was 'combined with intoxicants , it often makes the smoker vicious , with a desire to fight and kill' .
It was also seen as a stepping stone in Harry Anslinger 's future when he entered the Federal Bureau of Narcotics to outlaw it .
These are of course just some of the reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The digital letdown was when many of the top ideas generated by the process were to legalize marijuana 
Or maybe that's because it's a worthwhile and viable policy objective.I agree with you there.
Marijuana (to my knowledge) was the last natural (as opposed to synthetics and chemical) 'mind altering' substance.
Cocaine was outlawed in 1914 with the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act, Opium was made illegal in 1905, alcohol was illegal in 1920 (Prohibition).
Marijuana on the other hand was made illegal in 1937 with the  Marihuana Tax Act, and while it was a tax the government wouldn't accept the money effectively making it illegal.
It was also followed with the Uniform State Narcotic ActIt was also made illegal for the wrong reasons, with massive help from Harry Anslinger.
Some of the reasons where financial gains, as people like Harry Anslinger's wife's family, the Mellon family who owned Mellon Financial Corporation.
The Mellon Financial Corporation had invested in DuPont who had synthetic products that competed against hemp, amongst others, and that helped since hemp and marijuana aren't very different (they are, but not like and apple to an orange).
Another reason was racism, and Harry Anslinger was also a virulent racist, and at the time spun marijuana to be considered a 'color man's' drug, noted of being used by black jazz players and Mexican immigrants (while I'm aware it was not limited to certain people, it was how it was spun at the time).
It was also had the use of very distorted 'facts' to help, one of them being the story in Scientific America in March of 1936 ( http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/menaces\_youth.htm [druglibrary.org] ) that stated when marijuana was 'combined with intoxicants, it often makes the smoker vicious, with a desire to fight and kill'.
It was also seen as a stepping stone in Harry Anslinger's future when he entered the Federal Bureau of Narcotics to outlaw it.
These are of course just some of the reasons.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31309158</id>
	<title>Wrong Summary On Marijuana</title>
	<author>careysub</author>
	<datestamp>1267354320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, one of the top ideas was NOT to "legalize marijuana"! The third most popular item was to remove marijuana from Schedule 1, where its placement violates federal law, the DEA's own internal regulations, and peer-reviewed science!</p><p>Click on the "marijuana link" in the summary and read the item for yourself.</p><p>This is a simple matter of paying attention to science and obeying the law as written.</p><p> The rules for Schedule I are:<br>
A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.<br>
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.<br>
C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.</p><p>The best available scientific and medical evidence and opinion clearly shows that criteria B and C do not apply. The only way one can claim A applies is via a circular argument: all cannabis use DEFINED as abuse, therefore it has a high potential for abuse.</p><p>The logic of scheduling Cannabis at no higher than IV, and most accurately at Schedule V, is further shown by the DEA itself - by scheduling pure 100\% THC at Schedule III!</p><p>Clearly a preparation that is only about 10\% as potent should have a lower ranking. One should note that Schedule V consists ENTIRELY of drugs with higher rankings (from I down to III) in reduced potency preparations. This the reason that this low scheduling category exists.</p><p>If the rules of classification are objectively and scientifically applied the it would rank no higher than Schedule V, the lowest and least restrictive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , one of the top ideas was NOT to " legalize marijuana " !
The third most popular item was to remove marijuana from Schedule 1 , where its placement violates federal law , the DEA 's own internal regulations , and peer-reviewed science ! Click on the " marijuana link " in the summary and read the item for yourself.This is a simple matter of paying attention to science and obeying the law as written .
The rules for Schedule I are : A ) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse .
( B ) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States .
C ) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.The best available scientific and medical evidence and opinion clearly shows that criteria B and C do not apply .
The only way one can claim A applies is via a circular argument : all cannabis use DEFINED as abuse , therefore it has a high potential for abuse.The logic of scheduling Cannabis at no higher than IV , and most accurately at Schedule V , is further shown by the DEA itself - by scheduling pure 100 \ % THC at Schedule III ! Clearly a preparation that is only about 10 \ % as potent should have a lower ranking .
One should note that Schedule V consists ENTIRELY of drugs with higher rankings ( from I down to III ) in reduced potency preparations .
This the reason that this low scheduling category exists.If the rules of classification are objectively and scientifically applied the it would rank no higher than Schedule V , the lowest and least restrictive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, one of the top ideas was NOT to "legalize marijuana"!
The third most popular item was to remove marijuana from Schedule 1, where its placement violates federal law, the DEA's own internal regulations, and peer-reviewed science!Click on the "marijuana link" in the summary and read the item for yourself.This is a simple matter of paying attention to science and obeying the law as written.
The rules for Schedule I are:
A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.The best available scientific and medical evidence and opinion clearly shows that criteria B and C do not apply.
The only way one can claim A applies is via a circular argument: all cannabis use DEFINED as abuse, therefore it has a high potential for abuse.The logic of scheduling Cannabis at no higher than IV, and most accurately at Schedule V, is further shown by the DEA itself - by scheduling pure 100\% THC at Schedule III!Clearly a preparation that is only about 10\% as potent should have a lower ranking.
One should note that Schedule V consists ENTIRELY of drugs with higher rankings (from I down to III) in reduced potency preparations.
This the reason that this low scheduling category exists.If the rules of classification are objectively and scientifically applied the it would rank no higher than Schedule V, the lowest and least restrictive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307090</id>
	<title>first</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267381920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>first first!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>first first !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>first first!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307562</id>
	<title>Seeing the little picture</title>
	<author>jfengel</author>
	<datestamp>1267385220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People like to look at the Big Picture because it's a lot easier than seeing the details.  Details take work, but anybody can see the Big Picture.  Or at least, believe that they do.</p><p>Fixing "the government" is something people think they can do.  But the executive branch is made up of agencies, and most people haven't the faintest idea what those agencies do.</p><p>How do you fix the State Department?  Well, what's wrong with the State Department?  Plenty, if you ask State Department employees, who know what actually goes on inside it.   Any idea how the Bureau of Consular Affairs coordinates with the Bureau of Diplomatic Security?  Did you even know we had a Bureau of Diplomatic Security?  Or the difference between its Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence and its Office of Intelligence and Threat Analysis?</p><p>Big, sweeping solutions like "legalize marijuana" seem like panaceas, but in fact the government is a vast, complex entity, like the company you work for scaled up by a factor of 1,000.  Ending the war on drugs is certainly a good idea, but if you really want to fix government, it helps to know something about government, and not just</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People like to look at the Big Picture because it 's a lot easier than seeing the details .
Details take work , but anybody can see the Big Picture .
Or at least , believe that they do.Fixing " the government " is something people think they can do .
But the executive branch is made up of agencies , and most people have n't the faintest idea what those agencies do.How do you fix the State Department ?
Well , what 's wrong with the State Department ?
Plenty , if you ask State Department employees , who know what actually goes on inside it .
Any idea how the Bureau of Consular Affairs coordinates with the Bureau of Diplomatic Security ?
Did you even know we had a Bureau of Diplomatic Security ?
Or the difference between its Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence and its Office of Intelligence and Threat Analysis ? Big , sweeping solutions like " legalize marijuana " seem like panaceas , but in fact the government is a vast , complex entity , like the company you work for scaled up by a factor of 1,000 .
Ending the war on drugs is certainly a good idea , but if you really want to fix government , it helps to know something about government , and not just</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People like to look at the Big Picture because it's a lot easier than seeing the details.
Details take work, but anybody can see the Big Picture.
Or at least, believe that they do.Fixing "the government" is something people think they can do.
But the executive branch is made up of agencies, and most people haven't the faintest idea what those agencies do.How do you fix the State Department?
Well, what's wrong with the State Department?
Plenty, if you ask State Department employees, who know what actually goes on inside it.
Any idea how the Bureau of Consular Affairs coordinates with the Bureau of Diplomatic Security?
Did you even know we had a Bureau of Diplomatic Security?
Or the difference between its Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence and its Office of Intelligence and Threat Analysis?Big, sweeping solutions like "legalize marijuana" seem like panaceas, but in fact the government is a vast, complex entity, like the company you work for scaled up by a factor of 1,000.
Ending the war on drugs is certainly a good idea, but if you really want to fix government, it helps to know something about government, and not just</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1650241_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31312302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1650241_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31308156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1650241_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31308316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1650241_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31312114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1650241_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1650241_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31308292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1650241_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31309186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1650241_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1650241_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31310912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1650241_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1650241_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31311442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1650241_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31313184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1650241_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31319476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1650241_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1650241_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1650241_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31314416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1650241_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1650241_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31308520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1650241_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1650241_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31308136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1650241_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31309410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1650241_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31319664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1650241_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31308266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1650241_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31311390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1650241_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31308748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1650241.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307614
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1650241.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31314416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31308136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31308266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31313184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307506
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1650241.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31310912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1650241.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307228
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1650241.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31308550
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1650241.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31308156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307338
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307954
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31309410
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31308316
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31308520
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31309186
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31319664
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31319476
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31308748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31311442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31308292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307316
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31312114
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1650241.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31308072
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1650241.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31311390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31312302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1650241.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31310988
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1650241.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31307422
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1650241.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1650241.31309158
</commentlist>
</conversation>
