<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_07_2037229</id>
	<title>Algebra In Wonderland</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1267951380000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>theodp writes <i>"As Tim Burton's 'Alice in Wonderland' <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2010-03-07-boxoffice08\_N.htm">shatters 3-D and IMAX records en route to a $116.3 million opening</a>, the NY Times offers a rather cerebral op-ed arguing that Alice's search for a beautiful garden can be neatly interpreted as a mishmash of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/opinion/07bayley.html?sq=algebra&amp;st=cse&amp;scp=1&amp;pagewanted=print">satire directed at the advances taking place in mid-19th century math</a>. Charles Dodgson, who penned 'Alice' under the name Lewis Carroll, was a tutor in mathematics at Christ Church in Oxford who found the radical new math illogical and lacking in intellectual rigor. Op-ed writer Melanie Bayley explains: 'Chapter 6, "Pig and Pepper," parodies the principle of continuity, a bizarre concept from projective geometry, which was introduced in the mid-19th century from France. This principle (now an important aspect of modern topology) involves the idea that one shape can bend and stretch into another, provided it retains the same basic properties &mdash; a circle is the same as an ellipse or a parabola (the curve of the Cheshire cat's grin). Taking the notion to its extreme, what works for a circle should also work for a baby. So, when Alice takes the Duchess's baby outside, it turns into a pig. The Cheshire Cat says, "I thought it would."'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>theodp writes " As Tim Burton 's 'Alice in Wonderland ' shatters 3-D and IMAX records en route to a $ 116.3 million opening , the NY Times offers a rather cerebral op-ed arguing that Alice 's search for a beautiful garden can be neatly interpreted as a mishmash of satire directed at the advances taking place in mid-19th century math .
Charles Dodgson , who penned 'Alice ' under the name Lewis Carroll , was a tutor in mathematics at Christ Church in Oxford who found the radical new math illogical and lacking in intellectual rigor .
Op-ed writer Melanie Bayley explains : 'Chapter 6 , " Pig and Pepper , " parodies the principle of continuity , a bizarre concept from projective geometry , which was introduced in the mid-19th century from France .
This principle ( now an important aspect of modern topology ) involves the idea that one shape can bend and stretch into another , provided it retains the same basic properties    a circle is the same as an ellipse or a parabola ( the curve of the Cheshire cat 's grin ) .
Taking the notion to its extreme , what works for a circle should also work for a baby .
So , when Alice takes the Duchess 's baby outside , it turns into a pig .
The Cheshire Cat says , " I thought it would .
" ' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theodp writes "As Tim Burton's 'Alice in Wonderland' shatters 3-D and IMAX records en route to a $116.3 million opening, the NY Times offers a rather cerebral op-ed arguing that Alice's search for a beautiful garden can be neatly interpreted as a mishmash of satire directed at the advances taking place in mid-19th century math.
Charles Dodgson, who penned 'Alice' under the name Lewis Carroll, was a tutor in mathematics at Christ Church in Oxford who found the radical new math illogical and lacking in intellectual rigor.
Op-ed writer Melanie Bayley explains: 'Chapter 6, "Pig and Pepper," parodies the principle of continuity, a bizarre concept from projective geometry, which was introduced in the mid-19th century from France.
This principle (now an important aspect of modern topology) involves the idea that one shape can bend and stretch into another, provided it retains the same basic properties — a circle is the same as an ellipse or a parabola (the curve of the Cheshire cat's grin).
Taking the notion to its extreme, what works for a circle should also work for a baby.
So, when Alice takes the Duchess's baby outside, it turns into a pig.
The Cheshire Cat says, "I thought it would.
"'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393504</id>
	<title>Headache from reading only the summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267955400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can I haz one?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can I haz one ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can I haz one?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31398714</id>
	<title>Well, you can ask Dodgson directly in a sense</title>
	<author>Kupfernigk</author>
	<datestamp>1268045220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dodgson wrote a lot more than just Alice, and there is plenty of data.<p>I wish I'd seen the thread earlier because there is an error: Dodgson was <i>not</i> a tutor in mathematics. He was a Student of Christ Church Oxford(The House), which means he was a top level research mathematician. He was a pioneer of photography (in a day when that mean also being a cutting-edge chemist) whose social circle included people like Tennyson. He wrote seriously not only on mathematics but also theology. It's clear from his writings that what he really wanted was a family, but owing to the weird setup of the day only the Master of a college could be married - and Dodgson makes it clear frequently that he felt much better qualified for that job than the incumbent. The Alice of the stories is Alice Liddell, daughter of the head of The House, and there is at least one sarcastic reference (regarding its banality) to Liddell's book in Alice.</p><p>Dodgson wrote a number of stories for children that were designed to exemplify mathematical ideas, but which today are almost unreadably sentimental. But his intentions with the Alice books were perfectly clear. He wanted to write the very best children's books he could, and he paid obsessive (and expensive) attention to detail in getting them illustrated and published. He was writing for an extremely intelligent little girl and her friends, all from academic backgrounds. I am sure all the other stuff simply sprang from his extremely well stocked mind.</p><p>The relevance of this to the film is obvious - Burton is a highly intelligent (if slightly eccentric) film maker. Had Dodgson been around today, it's all too easy to believe that Burton would have been his automatic first choice for director.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dodgson wrote a lot more than just Alice , and there is plenty of data.I wish I 'd seen the thread earlier because there is an error : Dodgson was not a tutor in mathematics .
He was a Student of Christ Church Oxford ( The House ) , which means he was a top level research mathematician .
He was a pioneer of photography ( in a day when that mean also being a cutting-edge chemist ) whose social circle included people like Tennyson .
He wrote seriously not only on mathematics but also theology .
It 's clear from his writings that what he really wanted was a family , but owing to the weird setup of the day only the Master of a college could be married - and Dodgson makes it clear frequently that he felt much better qualified for that job than the incumbent .
The Alice of the stories is Alice Liddell , daughter of the head of The House , and there is at least one sarcastic reference ( regarding its banality ) to Liddell 's book in Alice.Dodgson wrote a number of stories for children that were designed to exemplify mathematical ideas , but which today are almost unreadably sentimental .
But his intentions with the Alice books were perfectly clear .
He wanted to write the very best children 's books he could , and he paid obsessive ( and expensive ) attention to detail in getting them illustrated and published .
He was writing for an extremely intelligent little girl and her friends , all from academic backgrounds .
I am sure all the other stuff simply sprang from his extremely well stocked mind.The relevance of this to the film is obvious - Burton is a highly intelligent ( if slightly eccentric ) film maker .
Had Dodgson been around today , it 's all too easy to believe that Burton would have been his automatic first choice for director .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dodgson wrote a lot more than just Alice, and there is plenty of data.I wish I'd seen the thread earlier because there is an error: Dodgson was not a tutor in mathematics.
He was a Student of Christ Church Oxford(The House), which means he was a top level research mathematician.
He was a pioneer of photography (in a day when that mean also being a cutting-edge chemist) whose social circle included people like Tennyson.
He wrote seriously not only on mathematics but also theology.
It's clear from his writings that what he really wanted was a family, but owing to the weird setup of the day only the Master of a college could be married - and Dodgson makes it clear frequently that he felt much better qualified for that job than the incumbent.
The Alice of the stories is Alice Liddell, daughter of the head of The House, and there is at least one sarcastic reference (regarding its banality) to Liddell's book in Alice.Dodgson wrote a number of stories for children that were designed to exemplify mathematical ideas, but which today are almost unreadably sentimental.
But his intentions with the Alice books were perfectly clear.
He wanted to write the very best children's books he could, and he paid obsessive (and expensive) attention to detail in getting them illustrated and published.
He was writing for an extremely intelligent little girl and her friends, all from academic backgrounds.
I am sure all the other stuff simply sprang from his extremely well stocked mind.The relevance of this to the film is obvious - Burton is a highly intelligent (if slightly eccentric) film maker.
Had Dodgson been around today, it's all too easy to believe that Burton would have been his automatic first choice for director.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31397122</id>
	<title>Re:A baby is not a sphere</title>
	<author>fractoid</author>
	<datestamp>1267980960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It all hinges on the topological properties of a sphincter.</p></div><p>That's disturbingly informative considering the visual it gives.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It all hinges on the topological properties of a sphincter.That 's disturbingly informative considering the visual it gives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It all hinges on the topological properties of a sphincter.That's disturbingly informative considering the visual it gives.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31403364</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah Not Really</title>
	<author>cayenne8</author>
	<datestamp>1268077200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"For example, the Wizard of Oz was a play on the politics of a silver based economy and westward expansion."</i> <p>

Really?</p><p>
I always thought it was a movie created to sync up with <b> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark\_side\_of\_the\_rainbow" title="wikipedia.org">The Dark Side of the Moon</a> [wikipedia.org]<nobr> <wbr></nobr></b>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" For example , the Wizard of Oz was a play on the politics of a silver based economy and westward expansion .
" Really ?
I always thought it was a movie created to sync up with The Dark Side of the Moon [ wikipedia.org ] .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"For example, the Wizard of Oz was a play on the politics of a silver based economy and westward expansion.
" 

Really?
I always thought it was a movie created to sync up with  The Dark Side of the Moon [wikipedia.org] ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393556</id>
	<title>Uh huh</title>
	<author>davidbrit2</author>
	<datestamp>1267955700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was my understanding that there would be no math.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was my understanding that there would be no math .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was my understanding that there would be no math.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31395262</id>
	<title>Re:-1, Don't Care?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1267967160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alice in Wonderland is one of the few books that you can make a billion movies of and still manage to show a different angle of. The book gives you the material to tell pretty much anything, from a Disney-esque fairy tale with fluffy animals and a song every other minute to a gothic-horror splatter movie that makes you lift your feet every other minute to let the blood flood past.</p><p>I'm fairly sure that it's also the book that has been reviewed and discussed in more different classes and subjects than any other book. It contains material for sociology, politics, psychology and as we can see now, math. And I'm fairly sure a few more that I can't think of right now. It has a lot of angles you can look at it.</p><p>Yes, it's yet another Alice movie. And I'm quite sure it's different from any that have been made so far.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alice in Wonderland is one of the few books that you can make a billion movies of and still manage to show a different angle of .
The book gives you the material to tell pretty much anything , from a Disney-esque fairy tale with fluffy animals and a song every other minute to a gothic-horror splatter movie that makes you lift your feet every other minute to let the blood flood past.I 'm fairly sure that it 's also the book that has been reviewed and discussed in more different classes and subjects than any other book .
It contains material for sociology , politics , psychology and as we can see now , math .
And I 'm fairly sure a few more that I ca n't think of right now .
It has a lot of angles you can look at it.Yes , it 's yet another Alice movie .
And I 'm quite sure it 's different from any that have been made so far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alice in Wonderland is one of the few books that you can make a billion movies of and still manage to show a different angle of.
The book gives you the material to tell pretty much anything, from a Disney-esque fairy tale with fluffy animals and a song every other minute to a gothic-horror splatter movie that makes you lift your feet every other minute to let the blood flood past.I'm fairly sure that it's also the book that has been reviewed and discussed in more different classes and subjects than any other book.
It contains material for sociology, politics, psychology and as we can see now, math.
And I'm fairly sure a few more that I can't think of right now.
It has a lot of angles you can look at it.Yes, it's yet another Alice movie.
And I'm quite sure it's different from any that have been made so far.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31394800</id>
	<title>Re:-1, Don't Care?</title>
	<author>\_Sprocket\_</author>
	<datestamp>1267963560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe the article isn't all about 3D and Johnny Depp?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the article is n't all about 3D and Johnny Depp ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the article isn't all about 3D and Johnny Depp?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393732</id>
	<title>Re:Uh huh</title>
	<author>billius</author>
	<datestamp>1267957020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Indeed, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrNrLly1vvM" title="youtube.com">I was to understand that there'd be pie and punch</a> [youtube.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , I was to understand that there 'd be pie and punch [ youtube.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, I was to understand that there'd be pie and punch [youtube.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393994</id>
	<title>Re:All of the above and Cowboy Neal</title>
	<author>bane2571</author>
	<datestamp>1267958760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately as far as I'm concerned you basically discribed high school english lit. I remember always sitting there thinking, "Yeah, sure it could be a metaphor for his penis, but how did you know the author didn't just really like bannannas?" Well, ok maybe not that exactly but it's close enough.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately as far as I 'm concerned you basically discribed high school english lit .
I remember always sitting there thinking , " Yeah , sure it could be a metaphor for his penis , but how did you know the author did n't just really like bannannas ?
" Well , ok maybe not that exactly but it 's close enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately as far as I'm concerned you basically discribed high school english lit.
I remember always sitting there thinking, "Yeah, sure it could be a metaphor for his penis, but how did you know the author didn't just really like bannannas?
" Well, ok maybe not that exactly but it's close enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393746</id>
	<title>To understand infinitesimal calculus</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1267957080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To understand infinitesimal calculus, you must first understand the easy half of infinitesimal calculus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To understand infinitesimal calculus , you must first understand the easy half of infinitesimal calculus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To understand infinitesimal calculus, you must first understand the easy half of infinitesimal calculus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393526</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah Not Really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267955460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's pretty well established that the Alice books contained all kinds of references and allusions that would have gone straight over a child's head.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's pretty well established that the Alice books contained all kinds of references and allusions that would have gone straight over a child 's head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's pretty well established that the Alice books contained all kinds of references and allusions that would have gone straight over a child's head.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393502</id>
	<title>A baby is not a sphere</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267955400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surely a mammal is a torus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely a mammal is a torus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely a mammal is a torus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31399892</id>
	<title>by your standards</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1268059140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>anyone who spends a lot of time around children is a pedophile, like kindergarten teachers or nannies</p><p>unless you can point to a situation in which SEXUAL interest is suggested, to suggest he is a pedophile is completely spurious</p><p>for example, his pictures: is there anything even remotely erotic about them? innocence is another thing adults are fascinated about children, and "innocence" does not directly connote sexual innocence. being genuinely unaware of and unspoilt by adult concerns: economic innocence, social convention innocence, racist and ethnocentric innocence, knowledge of mortality innocence, moral innocence, etc</p><p>and for dedicating a book to a child: in what way is that indication of sexuality? people can be captivated by other people, including children, for all sorts of reasons. maybe this alice was just hilariously precocious and a wise ass and sort of a savant of the absurdist commentary. i've met kids who not only say the most hilariously captivating and incongruent things, but they do so in a way no adult mind could construct, and they do it consistently. for a man of dodgson's interests, such plasticity of childlike mind probably was completely enthralling and absorbing, and for completely nonsexual reasons, yet very magnetic reasons. so maybe he dedicated "alice" to her because it fit her personality, or perhaps she actually is a coauthor, if not overtly, but in subtle ways like planting the seeds in dodgson's minds of the various situations in the story</p><p>believe it or not, there are genuinely nonsexual reasons that some adults spend a lot of time around children and become captivated by them. and its normal, and its way more common: its the majority of life experience. ask any parent who befriends his own child, or any older relative, or caretaker. or even scattered situational settings, say a boarder who winds up being stuck at home with a child  of another boarder or house's owner over an extended period of time: a completely innocent and normal friendship can develop, without any sexual overtones</p><p>of course, pedophiles do exist, and they are the scum of the earth. they deserve severe punishment, because of the threat they represent to children's well-begin. but exactly because of that, you need to be extremely careful with the charge of "pedophile!", it is not a charge to level lightly</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>anyone who spends a lot of time around children is a pedophile , like kindergarten teachers or nanniesunless you can point to a situation in which SEXUAL interest is suggested , to suggest he is a pedophile is completely spuriousfor example , his pictures : is there anything even remotely erotic about them ?
innocence is another thing adults are fascinated about children , and " innocence " does not directly connote sexual innocence .
being genuinely unaware of and unspoilt by adult concerns : economic innocence , social convention innocence , racist and ethnocentric innocence , knowledge of mortality innocence , moral innocence , etcand for dedicating a book to a child : in what way is that indication of sexuality ?
people can be captivated by other people , including children , for all sorts of reasons .
maybe this alice was just hilariously precocious and a wise ass and sort of a savant of the absurdist commentary .
i 've met kids who not only say the most hilariously captivating and incongruent things , but they do so in a way no adult mind could construct , and they do it consistently .
for a man of dodgson 's interests , such plasticity of childlike mind probably was completely enthralling and absorbing , and for completely nonsexual reasons , yet very magnetic reasons .
so maybe he dedicated " alice " to her because it fit her personality , or perhaps she actually is a coauthor , if not overtly , but in subtle ways like planting the seeds in dodgson 's minds of the various situations in the storybelieve it or not , there are genuinely nonsexual reasons that some adults spend a lot of time around children and become captivated by them .
and its normal , and its way more common : its the majority of life experience .
ask any parent who befriends his own child , or any older relative , or caretaker .
or even scattered situational settings , say a boarder who winds up being stuck at home with a child of another boarder or house 's owner over an extended period of time : a completely innocent and normal friendship can develop , without any sexual overtonesof course , pedophiles do exist , and they are the scum of the earth .
they deserve severe punishment , because of the threat they represent to children 's well-begin .
but exactly because of that , you need to be extremely careful with the charge of " pedophile !
" , it is not a charge to level lightly</tokentext>
<sentencetext>anyone who spends a lot of time around children is a pedophile, like kindergarten teachers or nanniesunless you can point to a situation in which SEXUAL interest is suggested, to suggest he is a pedophile is completely spuriousfor example, his pictures: is there anything even remotely erotic about them?
innocence is another thing adults are fascinated about children, and "innocence" does not directly connote sexual innocence.
being genuinely unaware of and unspoilt by adult concerns: economic innocence, social convention innocence, racist and ethnocentric innocence, knowledge of mortality innocence, moral innocence, etcand for dedicating a book to a child: in what way is that indication of sexuality?
people can be captivated by other people, including children, for all sorts of reasons.
maybe this alice was just hilariously precocious and a wise ass and sort of a savant of the absurdist commentary.
i've met kids who not only say the most hilariously captivating and incongruent things, but they do so in a way no adult mind could construct, and they do it consistently.
for a man of dodgson's interests, such plasticity of childlike mind probably was completely enthralling and absorbing, and for completely nonsexual reasons, yet very magnetic reasons.
so maybe he dedicated "alice" to her because it fit her personality, or perhaps she actually is a coauthor, if not overtly, but in subtle ways like planting the seeds in dodgson's minds of the various situations in the storybelieve it or not, there are genuinely nonsexual reasons that some adults spend a lot of time around children and become captivated by them.
and its normal, and its way more common: its the majority of life experience.
ask any parent who befriends his own child, or any older relative, or caretaker.
or even scattered situational settings, say a boarder who winds up being stuck at home with a child  of another boarder or house's owner over an extended period of time: a completely innocent and normal friendship can develop, without any sexual overtonesof course, pedophiles do exist, and they are the scum of the earth.
they deserve severe punishment, because of the threat they represent to children's well-begin.
but exactly because of that, you need to be extremely careful with the charge of "pedophile!
", it is not a charge to level lightly</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31395392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31395368</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah Not Really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267968120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Sure, Dodgson was a mathematician and logician. But he was writing a mind bending kids story, not "satirizing" his trade.</i> </p><p>How is that "insightful?"  It's just a bare contradiction of TFA. No insight, reason, or evidence is provided as to why we should prefer this, apparently uninformed, opinion to TFA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , Dodgson was a mathematician and logician .
But he was writing a mind bending kids story , not " satirizing " his trade .
How is that " insightful ?
" It 's just a bare contradiction of TFA .
No insight , reason , or evidence is provided as to why we should prefer this , apparently uninformed , opinion to TFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Sure, Dodgson was a mathematician and logician.
But he was writing a mind bending kids story, not "satirizing" his trade.
How is that "insightful?
"  It's just a bare contradiction of TFA.
No insight, reason, or evidence is provided as to why we should prefer this, apparently uninformed, opinion to TFA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393656</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah Not Really</title>
	<author>plover</author>
	<datestamp>1267956480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>he was writing a mind bending kids story, not "satirizing" his trade.</p></div><p>Why not?  Did you even RTFA?  The arguments are sound, the evidence is there.</p><p>It isn't an unusual literary device to write allegorically about other topics.  For example, the Wizard of Oz was a play on the politics of a silver based economy and westward expansion.</p><p>If I had such a gifted imagination, perhaps I could write a children's story based on floppy discs and CDs, of filesharers and industry groups, but all dressed up like trading kittens and bunnies eating cabbages and milk.  (If that sounds awful, well, I'm not very good at writing children's stories now, am I?)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>he was writing a mind bending kids story , not " satirizing " his trade.Why not ?
Did you even RTFA ?
The arguments are sound , the evidence is there.It is n't an unusual literary device to write allegorically about other topics .
For example , the Wizard of Oz was a play on the politics of a silver based economy and westward expansion.If I had such a gifted imagination , perhaps I could write a children 's story based on floppy discs and CDs , of filesharers and industry groups , but all dressed up like trading kittens and bunnies eating cabbages and milk .
( If that sounds awful , well , I 'm not very good at writing children 's stories now , am I ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he was writing a mind bending kids story, not "satirizing" his trade.Why not?
Did you even RTFA?
The arguments are sound, the evidence is there.It isn't an unusual literary device to write allegorically about other topics.
For example, the Wizard of Oz was a play on the politics of a silver based economy and westward expansion.If I had such a gifted imagination, perhaps I could write a children's story based on floppy discs and CDs, of filesharers and industry groups, but all dressed up like trading kittens and bunnies eating cabbages and milk.
(If that sounds awful, well, I'm not very good at writing children's stories now, am I?
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393754</id>
	<title>Re:A baby is not a sphere</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267957140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Genus of three?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Genus of three ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Genus of three?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31395142</id>
	<title>Re:you're kidding</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1267966200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And sometimes, a cow is spheric symmetric... at least in the eyes of a physicist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And sometimes , a cow is spheric symmetric... at least in the eyes of a physicist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And sometimes, a cow is spheric symmetric... at least in the eyes of a physicist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393544</id>
	<title>The movie got ok reviews</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267955640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I heard the movie infringed upon some readers ownership of the idea of Alice In Wonderland. Not everyone was happy<br>'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I heard the movie infringed upon some readers ownership of the idea of Alice In Wonderland .
Not everyone was happy'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heard the movie infringed upon some readers ownership of the idea of Alice In Wonderland.
Not everyone was happy'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393490</id>
	<title>But what about</title>
	<author>daniel.waterfield</author>
	<datestamp>1267955340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well death of the author and all that, and it's an interesting idea, but I can't really see how this holds weight. It just seems as though the paper is reading far too much into this, and I'm saying this after just writing a paper on psychoanalysis..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well death of the author and all that , and it 's an interesting idea , but I ca n't really see how this holds weight .
It just seems as though the paper is reading far too much into this , and I 'm saying this after just writing a paper on psychoanalysis. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well death of the author and all that, and it's an interesting idea, but I can't really see how this holds weight.
It just seems as though the paper is reading far too much into this, and I'm saying this after just writing a paper on psychoanalysis..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31394678</id>
	<title>Re:right idea, wrong details</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267962660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They went a bit overboard there, but a pig and a baby are probably homeomorphic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They went a bit overboard there , but a pig and a baby are probably homeomorphic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They went a bit overboard there, but a pig and a baby are probably homeomorphic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393982</id>
	<title>Re:a mammal is a torus</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1267958700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The default state of a sphincter is, arguably, not 'orifice'.</p><p>(It is also fairly unlikely that all of the various constrictions between the mouth and anus would be open simultaneously)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The default state of a sphincter is , arguably , not 'orifice' .
( It is also fairly unlikely that all of the various constrictions between the mouth and anus would be open simultaneously )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The default state of a sphincter is, arguably, not 'orifice'.
(It is also fairly unlikely that all of the various constrictions between the mouth and anus would be open simultaneously)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393660</id>
	<title>Actually, mammals are tori...</title>
	<author>RyanFenton</author>
	<datestamp>1267956540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Following the developmental path of mammals back in evolutionary time, back past chordates, the basic design behind mammals and similar animals is a hypothetical creature that is simply a mouth and a digestive system, expelling waste at the other end.  Essentially, a torus.  When mammal embryos are developing, one of the stages is essentially just that.  It's the basic core of mammalian structure.</p><p>Ryan Fenton</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Following the developmental path of mammals back in evolutionary time , back past chordates , the basic design behind mammals and similar animals is a hypothetical creature that is simply a mouth and a digestive system , expelling waste at the other end .
Essentially , a torus .
When mammal embryos are developing , one of the stages is essentially just that .
It 's the basic core of mammalian structure.Ryan Fenton</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Following the developmental path of mammals back in evolutionary time, back past chordates, the basic design behind mammals and similar animals is a hypothetical creature that is simply a mouth and a digestive system, expelling waste at the other end.
Essentially, a torus.
When mammal embryos are developing, one of the stages is essentially just that.
It's the basic core of mammalian structure.Ryan Fenton</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393524</id>
	<title>You mean P2P isn't killing cinema??</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1267955460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is that possible...?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is that possible... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is that possible...?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31394046</id>
	<title>Re:you're kidding</title>
	<author>Vintermann</author>
	<datestamp>1267958940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And sometimes a caterpillar sitting on a giant mushroom smoking a hookah is just a caterpillar sitting on a giant mushroom smoking a hookah.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And sometimes a caterpillar sitting on a giant mushroom smoking a hookah is just a caterpillar sitting on a giant mushroom smoking a hookah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And sometimes a caterpillar sitting on a giant mushroom smoking a hookah is just a caterpillar sitting on a giant mushroom smoking a hookah.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393728</id>
	<title>Not sure about the specifics</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1267956960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The weirdness of logic and maths certainly is a large part of Alice, though I doubt it's all of it. But it's fairly obvious to me, just as a geek with a bit of general knowledge, that the Alice books parody a number of things from late-Victorian era politics and education. It's also about puns, wordplay, and the strict application of logic beyond the domains where it applies; and just general nerdy amusement.</p><p>* The organising principle of 'Wonderland' is the card game<br>* The 'Caucus-race' obviously a satire on politics: the members run in a circle, accomplishing nothing except a lot of hot air. <a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/caucus\_race" title="wiktionary.org">http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/caucus\_race</a> [wiktionary.org]</p><p>I couldn't speak for certain about whether the Mad Hatter's party and the stuckness of Time really is a reference to Hamilton's quaternions, but quaternions are fascinating and they did introduce the idea of a 4D space-time continuum (and therefore time travel) half a century before Einstein/Minkowski, and scandalised and baffled the maths world, so it wouldn't surprise me if that was in the background.</p><p>* The organising principle of 'Looking Glass' is the chess game<br>* Anglo-Saxon literature (possibly Beowulf?) appears in Looking Glass - 'Jabberwocky' is a parody of the Beowulfian sort of epic, with the hero slaying the monster and lots of untranslated words<br>* The March Hare and Mad Hatter reappear as 'Anglo-Saxons' Haigha and Hatta. Again, this is the sort of stuff that educated children would have been expected to know as a matter of course, along with Latin and Greek and art ('Laughing and Grief; reeling, writhing and fainting in coils')</p><p>* The White Knight's speech ('the name of the song is called...') parses out the fine but very important distinction between objects and names, which becomes a major issue in logic (and more so in computer programming):</p><p><i>The name of the song is called 'Haddocks' Eyes.'"</i></p><p><i>"Oh, that's the name of the song, is it?" Alice said, trying to feel interested.</i></p><p><i>"No, you don't understand," the Knight said, looking a little vexed. "That's what the name<br>is called. The name really is 'The Aged, Aged Man.'"</i></p><p><i>"Then I ought to have said 'That's what the song is called'?" Alice corrected herself.</i></p><p><i>"No you oughtn't: that's another thing. The song is called 'Ways and Means' but that's only<br>what it's called, you know!"</i></p><p><i>"Well, what is the song then?" said Alice, who was by this time completely bewildered.</i></p><p><i>"I was coming to that," the Knight said. "The song really is 'A-sitting On a Gate': and the<br>tune's my own invention."</i></p><p>Like Terry Pratchett (and Bram Stoker - see <a href="http://infocult.typepad.com/dracula/" title="typepad.com">Dracula Blogged</a> [typepad.com]), Alice really needs a decent annotated edition to explain the obvious cultural and scientific references, since it is densely packed with references which might now be misunderstood, and so many weird conspiracy theories have arisen around the books.</p><p>The classic example of Dodgson's geeky humour is from 'Four Riddles':</p><p><a href="http://www.online-literature.com/carroll/2826/" title="online-literature.com">http://www.online-literature.com/carroll/2826/</a> [online-literature.com]</p><p><i>Yet what are all such gaieties to me<br>Whose thoughts are full of indices and surds?</i></p><p><i>x*x + 7x + 53 = 11/3</i></p><p>It doesn't just rhyme and form part of an overall story - it's an equation to be solved, which gives you a word, from which you can take the first and last letters and which give you a crossword/acrostic clue. Beat THAT for geek cred.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The weirdness of logic and maths certainly is a large part of Alice , though I doubt it 's all of it .
But it 's fairly obvious to me , just as a geek with a bit of general knowledge , that the Alice books parody a number of things from late-Victorian era politics and education .
It 's also about puns , wordplay , and the strict application of logic beyond the domains where it applies ; and just general nerdy amusement .
* The organising principle of 'Wonderland ' is the card game * The 'Caucus-race ' obviously a satire on politics : the members run in a circle , accomplishing nothing except a lot of hot air .
http : //en.wiktionary.org/wiki/caucus \ _race [ wiktionary.org ] I could n't speak for certain about whether the Mad Hatter 's party and the stuckness of Time really is a reference to Hamilton 's quaternions , but quaternions are fascinating and they did introduce the idea of a 4D space-time continuum ( and therefore time travel ) half a century before Einstein/Minkowski , and scandalised and baffled the maths world , so it would n't surprise me if that was in the background .
* The organising principle of 'Looking Glass ' is the chess game * Anglo-Saxon literature ( possibly Beowulf ?
) appears in Looking Glass - 'Jabberwocky ' is a parody of the Beowulfian sort of epic , with the hero slaying the monster and lots of untranslated words * The March Hare and Mad Hatter reappear as 'Anglo-Saxons ' Haigha and Hatta .
Again , this is the sort of stuff that educated children would have been expected to know as a matter of course , along with Latin and Greek and art ( 'Laughing and Grief ; reeling , writhing and fainting in coils ' ) * The White Knight 's speech ( 'the name of the song is called... ' ) parses out the fine but very important distinction between objects and names , which becomes a major issue in logic ( and more so in computer programming ) : The name of the song is called 'Haddocks ' Eyes .
' " " Oh , that 's the name of the song , is it ?
" Alice said , trying to feel interested .
" No , you do n't understand , " the Knight said , looking a little vexed .
" That 's what the nameis called .
The name really is 'The Aged , Aged Man .
' " " Then I ought to have said 'That 's what the song is called ' ?
" Alice corrected herself .
" No you ought n't : that 's another thing .
The song is called 'Ways and Means ' but that 's onlywhat it 's called , you know !
" " Well , what is the song then ?
" said Alice , who was by this time completely bewildered .
" I was coming to that , " the Knight said .
" The song really is 'A-sitting On a Gate ' : and thetune 's my own invention .
" Like Terry Pratchett ( and Bram Stoker - see Dracula Blogged [ typepad.com ] ) , Alice really needs a decent annotated edition to explain the obvious cultural and scientific references , since it is densely packed with references which might now be misunderstood , and so many weird conspiracy theories have arisen around the books.The classic example of Dodgson 's geeky humour is from 'Four Riddles ' : http : //www.online-literature.com/carroll/2826/ [ online-literature.com ] Yet what are all such gaieties to meWhose thoughts are full of indices and surds ? x * x + 7x + 53 = 11/3It does n't just rhyme and form part of an overall story - it 's an equation to be solved , which gives you a word , from which you can take the first and last letters and which give you a crossword/acrostic clue .
Beat THAT for geek cred .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The weirdness of logic and maths certainly is a large part of Alice, though I doubt it's all of it.
But it's fairly obvious to me, just as a geek with a bit of general knowledge, that the Alice books parody a number of things from late-Victorian era politics and education.
It's also about puns, wordplay, and the strict application of logic beyond the domains where it applies; and just general nerdy amusement.
* The organising principle of 'Wonderland' is the card game* The 'Caucus-race' obviously a satire on politics: the members run in a circle, accomplishing nothing except a lot of hot air.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/caucus\_race [wiktionary.org]I couldn't speak for certain about whether the Mad Hatter's party and the stuckness of Time really is a reference to Hamilton's quaternions, but quaternions are fascinating and they did introduce the idea of a 4D space-time continuum (and therefore time travel) half a century before Einstein/Minkowski, and scandalised and baffled the maths world, so it wouldn't surprise me if that was in the background.
* The organising principle of 'Looking Glass' is the chess game* Anglo-Saxon literature (possibly Beowulf?
) appears in Looking Glass - 'Jabberwocky' is a parody of the Beowulfian sort of epic, with the hero slaying the monster and lots of untranslated words* The March Hare and Mad Hatter reappear as 'Anglo-Saxons' Haigha and Hatta.
Again, this is the sort of stuff that educated children would have been expected to know as a matter of course, along with Latin and Greek and art ('Laughing and Grief; reeling, writhing and fainting in coils')* The White Knight's speech ('the name of the song is called...') parses out the fine but very important distinction between objects and names, which becomes a major issue in logic (and more so in computer programming):The name of the song is called 'Haddocks' Eyes.
'""Oh, that's the name of the song, is it?
" Alice said, trying to feel interested.
"No, you don't understand," the Knight said, looking a little vexed.
"That's what the nameis called.
The name really is 'The Aged, Aged Man.
'""Then I ought to have said 'That's what the song is called'?
" Alice corrected herself.
"No you oughtn't: that's another thing.
The song is called 'Ways and Means' but that's onlywhat it's called, you know!
""Well, what is the song then?
" said Alice, who was by this time completely bewildered.
"I was coming to that," the Knight said.
"The song really is 'A-sitting On a Gate': and thetune's my own invention.
"Like Terry Pratchett (and Bram Stoker - see Dracula Blogged [typepad.com]), Alice really needs a decent annotated edition to explain the obvious cultural and scientific references, since it is densely packed with references which might now be misunderstood, and so many weird conspiracy theories have arisen around the books.The classic example of Dodgson's geeky humour is from 'Four Riddles':http://www.online-literature.com/carroll/2826/ [online-literature.com]Yet what are all such gaieties to meWhose thoughts are full of indices and surds?x*x + 7x + 53 = 11/3It doesn't just rhyme and form part of an overall story - it's an equation to be solved, which gives you a word, from which you can take the first and last letters and which give you a crossword/acrostic clue.
Beat THAT for geek cred.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393478</id>
	<title>you're kidding</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267955280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31394966</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah Not Really</title>
	<author>node 3</author>
	<datestamp>1267965000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Judging intent is a phenomenally difficult task.</p></div><p>Sort of. If you look at it in an absolutist, objective sense, then yes. If you look at it in a subjective, probability sense, it's not that difficult at all. In fact, most people successfully do this many times a day.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>To say Charles Dodgson was satirizing his trade can only be speculative</p></div><p>Of course. But that's true of anything done by anyone. Even if they tell you to your face exactly what their intentions are, you can only ever speculate if they are telling the truth. At the end of the day, it <i>always</i> comes down to speculation.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>and it's just as easy to speculate that he wasn't.</p></div><p>This is the part you get exactly wrong. It's *not* just as easy, because given that he was a mathematician, and that the two Alice books abound with satire, it's difficult to believe that he wasn't satirizing mathematics when his books have so many examples of such.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Ultimately, and I think you know this already, authors write what they know about. Dodgson knew math, so is it really so odd to think he included mathematical concepts in his story because he thought it would be cool?</p></div><p>Here's a simple litmus test. Does the math seem bolted-on? Or does it integrate with the work as a whole? If it feels bolted-on, then perhaps it's just something he thought would be cool. If it fits the work as a whole, then it's most likely meant to be taken in the same way the rest of the work is, which is very much to be satire.</p><p>Like you said, though, you can never be <i>absolutely certain</i>, but you can be certain enough to make a personal judgement.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Judging intent is a phenomenally difficult task.Sort of .
If you look at it in an absolutist , objective sense , then yes .
If you look at it in a subjective , probability sense , it 's not that difficult at all .
In fact , most people successfully do this many times a day.To say Charles Dodgson was satirizing his trade can only be speculativeOf course .
But that 's true of anything done by anyone .
Even if they tell you to your face exactly what their intentions are , you can only ever speculate if they are telling the truth .
At the end of the day , it always comes down to speculation.and it 's just as easy to speculate that he was n't.This is the part you get exactly wrong .
It 's * not * just as easy , because given that he was a mathematician , and that the two Alice books abound with satire , it 's difficult to believe that he was n't satirizing mathematics when his books have so many examples of such.Ultimately , and I think you know this already , authors write what they know about .
Dodgson knew math , so is it really so odd to think he included mathematical concepts in his story because he thought it would be cool ? Here 's a simple litmus test .
Does the math seem bolted-on ?
Or does it integrate with the work as a whole ?
If it feels bolted-on , then perhaps it 's just something he thought would be cool .
If it fits the work as a whole , then it 's most likely meant to be taken in the same way the rest of the work is , which is very much to be satire.Like you said , though , you can never be absolutely certain , but you can be certain enough to make a personal judgement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Judging intent is a phenomenally difficult task.Sort of.
If you look at it in an absolutist, objective sense, then yes.
If you look at it in a subjective, probability sense, it's not that difficult at all.
In fact, most people successfully do this many times a day.To say Charles Dodgson was satirizing his trade can only be speculativeOf course.
But that's true of anything done by anyone.
Even if they tell you to your face exactly what their intentions are, you can only ever speculate if they are telling the truth.
At the end of the day, it always comes down to speculation.and it's just as easy to speculate that he wasn't.This is the part you get exactly wrong.
It's *not* just as easy, because given that he was a mathematician, and that the two Alice books abound with satire, it's difficult to believe that he wasn't satirizing mathematics when his books have so many examples of such.Ultimately, and I think you know this already, authors write what they know about.
Dodgson knew math, so is it really so odd to think he included mathematical concepts in his story because he thought it would be cool?Here's a simple litmus test.
Does the math seem bolted-on?
Or does it integrate with the work as a whole?
If it feels bolted-on, then perhaps it's just something he thought would be cool.
If it fits the work as a whole, then it's most likely meant to be taken in the same way the rest of the work is, which is very much to be satire.Like you said, though, you can never be absolutely certain, but you can be certain enough to make a personal judgement.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393454</id>
	<title>Yeah Not Really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267955100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, Dodgson was a mathematician and logician.  But he was writing a mind bending kids story, not "satirizing" his trade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , Dodgson was a mathematician and logician .
But he was writing a mind bending kids story , not " satirizing " his trade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, Dodgson was a mathematician and logician.
But he was writing a mind bending kids story, not "satirizing" his trade.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393630</id>
	<title>Re:A baby is not a sphere</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1267956240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It all hinges on the topological properties of a sphincter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It all hinges on the topological properties of a sphincter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It all hinges on the topological properties of a sphincter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393814</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah Not Really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267957560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Was there a logician between Aristotle and Dodgson?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was there a logician between Aristotle and Dodgson ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was there a logician between Aristotle and Dodgson?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31396218</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah Not Really</title>
	<author>plover</author>
	<datestamp>1267973400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The original poster stated the fixed position that he was not satirizing his trade, offering no rationale or reasoning.  Like you, I thought that was a very black and white position to take, and I saw plenty of room to question it.  Whether it was intentional or subconscious, at one level the tale seems to parallel his antipathy towards his contemporaries.</p><p>Is that speculative on my part?  Sure.  Was that his original intent?  Based on the evidence of multiple chapters appearing to parody the ridiculousness of several of his peers' arguments, it sure seems to be the case.  Could I be wrong?  I could, but it seems more likely that I am not.  Is speculation one way or the other easier?  Either way, it's much easier than the homework I'm currently on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. avoiding.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>So I'm not sure why you seem to be arguing against me, when we're both saying the same thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The original poster stated the fixed position that he was not satirizing his trade , offering no rationale or reasoning .
Like you , I thought that was a very black and white position to take , and I saw plenty of room to question it .
Whether it was intentional or subconscious , at one level the tale seems to parallel his antipathy towards his contemporaries.Is that speculative on my part ?
Sure. Was that his original intent ?
Based on the evidence of multiple chapters appearing to parody the ridiculousness of several of his peers ' arguments , it sure seems to be the case .
Could I be wrong ?
I could , but it seems more likely that I am not .
Is speculation one way or the other easier ?
Either way , it 's much easier than the homework I 'm currently on / .
avoiding. : - ) So I 'm not sure why you seem to be arguing against me , when we 're both saying the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The original poster stated the fixed position that he was not satirizing his trade, offering no rationale or reasoning.
Like you, I thought that was a very black and white position to take, and I saw plenty of room to question it.
Whether it was intentional or subconscious, at one level the tale seems to parallel his antipathy towards his contemporaries.Is that speculative on my part?
Sure.  Was that his original intent?
Based on the evidence of multiple chapters appearing to parody the ridiculousness of several of his peers' arguments, it sure seems to be the case.
Could I be wrong?
I could, but it seems more likely that I am not.
Is speculation one way or the other easier?
Either way, it's much easier than the homework I'm currently on /.
avoiding. :-)So I'm not sure why you seem to be arguing against me, when we're both saying the same thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31394348</id>
	<title>Re:right idea, wrong details</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267960620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In projective space a "parabola" has a point at infinity and thus is homeomorphic to a circle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In projective space a " parabola " has a point at infinity and thus is homeomorphic to a circle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In projective space a "parabola" has a point at infinity and thus is homeomorphic to a circle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31396462</id>
	<title>The Annotated Alice</title>
	<author>baomike</author>
	<datestamp>1267975200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like somebody found a copy.<br>There is so much stuff alluded to in Alice that the annotations seem to go on for ever.<br>It is an interesting read, but slow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like somebody found a copy.There is so much stuff alluded to in Alice that the annotations seem to go on for ever.It is an interesting read , but slow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like somebody found a copy.There is so much stuff alluded to in Alice that the annotations seem to go on for ever.It is an interesting read, but slow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31395654</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah Not Really</title>
	<author>digitig</author>
	<datestamp>1267969860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He was also scrupulous about making sure he was always chaperoned when with girls and women. Even if there were sexual desires (and there <em>are</em> other reasons for enjoying the company of children), the evidence is that they were properly managed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He was also scrupulous about making sure he was always chaperoned when with girls and women .
Even if there were sexual desires ( and there are other reasons for enjoying the company of children ) , the evidence is that they were properly managed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He was also scrupulous about making sure he was always chaperoned when with girls and women.
Even if there were sexual desires (and there are other reasons for enjoying the company of children), the evidence is that they were properly managed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31395392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393826</id>
	<title>-1, Don't Care?</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1267957620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean, it's 3D, and has Johnny Depp playing another cookie-cutter role, but why the fuss over the Nth retelling of Alice ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , it 's 3D , and has Johnny Depp playing another cookie-cutter role , but why the fuss over the Nth retelling of Alice ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, it's 3D, and has Johnny Depp playing another cookie-cutter role, but why the fuss over the Nth retelling of Alice ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31398778</id>
	<title>Re:-1, Don't Care?</title>
	<author>Ninth Marion</author>
	<datestamp>1268046420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Indeed. The textbook for my first year programming class for Engineering extensively used quotes throughout from Alice/Through The Looking Glass to illustrate concepts about algorithms and object-oriented programming. They were very suitable for the purpose,  I found. It was a book for teaching Pascal though...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
The textbook for my first year programming class for Engineering extensively used quotes throughout from Alice/Through The Looking Glass to illustrate concepts about algorithms and object-oriented programming .
They were very suitable for the purpose , I found .
It was a book for teaching Pascal though.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
The textbook for my first year programming class for Engineering extensively used quotes throughout from Alice/Through The Looking Glass to illustrate concepts about algorithms and object-oriented programming.
They were very suitable for the purpose,  I found.
It was a book for teaching Pascal though...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31395262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31394226</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah Not Really</title>
	<author>toastar</author>
	<datestamp>1267960020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always thought Alice was more about pedophilia then mathematics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always thought Alice was more about pedophilia then mathematics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always thought Alice was more about pedophilia then mathematics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31397560</id>
	<title>Re:right idea, wrong details</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267986000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, as long as neither has pierced ears...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , as long as neither has pierced ears.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, as long as neither has pierced ears...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31394678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393838</id>
	<title>right idea, wrong details</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267957740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"a circle is the same as an ellipse or a parabola (the curve of the Cheshire cat's grin). Taking the notion to its extreme, what works for a circle should also work for a baby."</p><p>It's been a while since I studied topology, but as I recall, a circle is homeomorphic to (topologically the same as) an ellipse, but not a parabola or a baby.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" a circle is the same as an ellipse or a parabola ( the curve of the Cheshire cat 's grin ) .
Taking the notion to its extreme , what works for a circle should also work for a baby .
" It 's been a while since I studied topology , but as I recall , a circle is homeomorphic to ( topologically the same as ) an ellipse , but not a parabola or a baby .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"a circle is the same as an ellipse or a parabola (the curve of the Cheshire cat's grin).
Taking the notion to its extreme, what works for a circle should also work for a baby.
"It's been a while since I studied topology, but as I recall, a circle is homeomorphic to (topologically the same as) an ellipse, but not a parabola or a baby.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393598</id>
	<title>Re:A baby is not a sphere</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267956060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're forgetting about the nose!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're forgetting about the nose !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're forgetting about the nose!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31395388</id>
	<title>Re:you're kidding</title>
	<author>hakey</author>
	<datestamp>1267968240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Ceci n'est pas une pipe" - Ren&#233; Magritte</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Ceci n'est pas une pipe " - Ren   Magritte</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Ceci n'est pas une pipe" - René Magritte</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393864</id>
	<title>Re:Not sure about the specifics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267957920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's an annotated edition that is much more than "decent".</p><p><a href="http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Annotated-Alice/Lewis-Carroll/e/9780393048476/?itm=1&amp;USRI=annotated+alice" title="barnesandnoble.com">http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Annotated-Alice/Lewis-Carroll/e/9780393048476/?itm=1&amp;USRI=annotated+alice</a> [barnesandnoble.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's an annotated edition that is much more than " decent " .http : //search.barnesandnoble.com/Annotated-Alice/Lewis-Carroll/e/9780393048476/ ? itm = 1&amp;USRI = annotated + alice [ barnesandnoble.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's an annotated edition that is much more than "decent".http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Annotated-Alice/Lewis-Carroll/e/9780393048476/?itm=1&amp;USRI=annotated+alice [barnesandnoble.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393774</id>
	<title>Re:a mammal is a torus</title>
	<author>snikulin</author>
	<datestamp>1267957320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, no. I don't have any piercing and I believe I represent an average mammal in all its glory.<br>Counting my own orifices, it's more like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Triple\_torus\_illustration.png" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">3-torus</a> [wikipedia.org].<br>Ears, while having Eustachian tubes, are still closed by ear drums and urinary tract is a dead end.</p><p>I also believe the above applies not to mammals only but to all tetrapods.<br>Maybe to all vertebrae too but I am not sure how many open orifices fishes have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , no .
I do n't have any piercing and I believe I represent an average mammal in all its glory.Counting my own orifices , it 's more like 3-torus [ wikipedia.org ] .Ears , while having Eustachian tubes , are still closed by ear drums and urinary tract is a dead end.I also believe the above applies not to mammals only but to all tetrapods.Maybe to all vertebrae too but I am not sure how many open orifices fishes have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, no.
I don't have any piercing and I believe I represent an average mammal in all its glory.Counting my own orifices, it's more like 3-torus [wikipedia.org].Ears, while having Eustachian tubes, are still closed by ear drums and urinary tract is a dead end.I also believe the above applies not to mammals only but to all tetrapods.Maybe to all vertebrae too but I am not sure how many open orifices fishes have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31395392</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah Not Really</title>
	<author>Schadrach</author>
	<datestamp>1267968240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While the phrasing may not have been the best, I don't know that it's necessarily a troll to mention pedophilia wrt Lewis Carroll.  He *did* spend a lot of time around young children, one of his hobbies was photography, his favorite subject young children.  And he named the main character of and dedicated "Alice" to a certain young girl he spent an excessive amount of time with.</p><p>There are a *lot* of "but that doesn't *mean* he's a pedophile" examples you can pull from Charles Dodgson's life.  Enough that the possibility is certainly up there.  Though you can't necessarily prove anything (though the pages missing from his papers and journals do pique suspicion).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While the phrasing may not have been the best , I do n't know that it 's necessarily a troll to mention pedophilia wrt Lewis Carroll .
He * did * spend a lot of time around young children , one of his hobbies was photography , his favorite subject young children .
And he named the main character of and dedicated " Alice " to a certain young girl he spent an excessive amount of time with.There are a * lot * of " but that does n't * mean * he 's a pedophile " examples you can pull from Charles Dodgson 's life .
Enough that the possibility is certainly up there .
Though you ca n't necessarily prove anything ( though the pages missing from his papers and journals do pique suspicion ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the phrasing may not have been the best, I don't know that it's necessarily a troll to mention pedophilia wrt Lewis Carroll.
He *did* spend a lot of time around young children, one of his hobbies was photography, his favorite subject young children.
And he named the main character of and dedicated "Alice" to a certain young girl he spent an excessive amount of time with.There are a *lot* of "but that doesn't *mean* he's a pedophile" examples you can pull from Charles Dodgson's life.
Enough that the possibility is certainly up there.
Though you can't necessarily prove anything (though the pages missing from his papers and journals do pique suspicion).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31394226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31397214</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah Not Really</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1267981620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a copy of the Annotated Alice, by Martin Garnder (who wrote Mathematical Games in Scientific American for many years).  There's probably as much annotation in that thing as actual text.  There's several pages that are nothing but annotations. Great reading.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a copy of the Annotated Alice , by Martin Garnder ( who wrote Mathematical Games in Scientific American for many years ) .
There 's probably as much annotation in that thing as actual text .
There 's several pages that are nothing but annotations .
Great reading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a copy of the Annotated Alice, by Martin Garnder (who wrote Mathematical Games in Scientific American for many years).
There's probably as much annotation in that thing as actual text.
There's several pages that are nothing but annotations.
Great reading.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31395554</id>
	<title>Re:you're kidding</title>
	<author>Capsaicin</author>
	<datestamp>1267969260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...</i> </p><p>What is it at the other times?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>sometimes a cigar is just a cigar... What is it at the other times ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> sometimes a cigar is just a cigar... What is it at the other times?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31398432</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah Not Really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268041380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;For example, the Wizard of Oz was a play on the politics of a silver based economy<br>&gt;and westward expansion.</p><p>Bullfuckingshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; For example , the Wizard of Oz was a play on the politics of a silver based economy &gt; and westward expansion.Bullfuckingshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;For example, the Wizard of Oz was a play on the politics of a silver based economy&gt;and westward expansion.Bullfuckingshit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31394476</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah Not Really</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1267961280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As it is, the article was substantially more convincing.  Had you included references to his other works such as</p><blockquote><div><p>Moreover, Dodgson was a rather exceptional student of Aristotelian logic, and he delighted his friends with games, puzzles and riddles. Dodgson's mock-heroic poem, The Hunting of the Snark (1876), ending with the line "For the Snark was a Bojuum, you see", received mixed reviews when it appeared. The meaning of the poem, which tells of the journey to capture the mythical Snark, has puzzled generations of readers. <b>"I'm very much afraid I didn't mean anything but nonsense!" </b> Dodgson later said.</p></div> </blockquote><p>along with a verifiable reference like: <a href="http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/lcarroll.htm" title="kirjasto.sci.fi">http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/lcarroll.htm</a> [kirjasto.sci.fi]</p><p>your comment might have had a little more sway.</p><p>Also, if you accounted for your method of understanding the intentions of someone who is now deceased, and has been for a while, we might have been able to independently confirm your theory, or properly and with all authority label you a quack.</p><p>All that remains is for you to post a picture of yourself so that we may properly ridicule you, since you have left us nothing else by which to counter your theory.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As it is , the article was substantially more convincing .
Had you included references to his other works such asMoreover , Dodgson was a rather exceptional student of Aristotelian logic , and he delighted his friends with games , puzzles and riddles .
Dodgson 's mock-heroic poem , The Hunting of the Snark ( 1876 ) , ending with the line " For the Snark was a Bojuum , you see " , received mixed reviews when it appeared .
The meaning of the poem , which tells of the journey to capture the mythical Snark , has puzzled generations of readers .
" I 'm very much afraid I did n't mean anything but nonsense !
" Dodgson later said .
along with a verifiable reference like : http : //www.kirjasto.sci.fi/lcarroll.htm [ kirjasto.sci.fi ] your comment might have had a little more sway.Also , if you accounted for your method of understanding the intentions of someone who is now deceased , and has been for a while , we might have been able to independently confirm your theory , or properly and with all authority label you a quack.All that remains is for you to post a picture of yourself so that we may properly ridicule you , since you have left us nothing else by which to counter your theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As it is, the article was substantially more convincing.
Had you included references to his other works such asMoreover, Dodgson was a rather exceptional student of Aristotelian logic, and he delighted his friends with games, puzzles and riddles.
Dodgson's mock-heroic poem, The Hunting of the Snark (1876), ending with the line "For the Snark was a Bojuum, you see", received mixed reviews when it appeared.
The meaning of the poem, which tells of the journey to capture the mythical Snark, has puzzled generations of readers.
"I'm very much afraid I didn't mean anything but nonsense!
"  Dodgson later said.
along with a verifiable reference like: http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/lcarroll.htm [kirjasto.sci.fi]your comment might have had a little more sway.Also, if you accounted for your method of understanding the intentions of someone who is now deceased, and has been for a while, we might have been able to independently confirm your theory, or properly and with all authority label you a quack.All that remains is for you to post a picture of yourself so that we may properly ridicule you, since you have left us nothing else by which to counter your theory.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31394904</id>
	<title>Re:you're kidding</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1267964520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And sometimes its a simply connected, three dimensional topological space isomorphic to a spherical ball.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And sometimes its a simply connected , three dimensional topological space isomorphic to a spherical ball .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And sometimes its a simply connected, three dimensional topological space isomorphic to a spherical ball.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31403862</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah Not Really</title>
	<author>acroyear</author>
	<datestamp>1268079480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Even if they tell you to your face exactly what their intentions are, you can only ever speculate if they are telling the truth.</i></p><p>Agreed, and this is ever more true in (classical) music than in literature.  Stravinsky's commentary on musical aesthetics and his own works are full of contradictions, both to the popular view of his works and to his own past commentary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if they tell you to your face exactly what their intentions are , you can only ever speculate if they are telling the truth.Agreed , and this is ever more true in ( classical ) music than in literature .
Stravinsky 's commentary on musical aesthetics and his own works are full of contradictions , both to the popular view of his works and to his own past commentary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if they tell you to your face exactly what their intentions are, you can only ever speculate if they are telling the truth.Agreed, and this is ever more true in (classical) music than in literature.
Stravinsky's commentary on musical aesthetics and his own works are full of contradictions, both to the popular view of his works and to his own past commentary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31394966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393998</id>
	<title>Must be where Nintendo got the idea</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1267958760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and possibly perspective-stretching mushrooms</p></div><p>Let's do the Mario!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and possibly perspective-stretching mushroomsLet 's do the Mario !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and possibly perspective-stretching mushroomsLet's do the Mario!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393496</id>
	<title>wat is this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267955340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i dont even</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i dont even</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i dont even</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31397306</id>
	<title>Re:you're kidding</title>
	<author>NetNed</author>
	<datestamp>1267982760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...</p></div><p>Stop stealing Bill Clinton's quotes!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...Stop stealing Bill Clinton 's quotes !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...Stop stealing Bill Clinton's quotes!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31397022</id>
	<title>Re:Not sure about the specifics</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1267980120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ooh! Shiny! and Martin Gardner too!</p><p>See, this is why I post on Slashdot, to learn things like this. Thank you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ooh !
Shiny ! and Martin Gardner too ! See , this is why I post on Slashdot , to learn things like this .
Thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ooh!
Shiny! and Martin Gardner too!See, this is why I post on Slashdot, to learn things like this.
Thank you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31395278</id>
	<title>Re:you're kidding</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267967340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But if you take a spherical cigar, in vacuum...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But if you take a spherical cigar , in vacuum.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But if you take a spherical cigar, in vacuum...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31395428</id>
	<title>Re:You mean P2P isn't killing cinema??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267968540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe its their nice way of saying one of their movies bombed and everyone else went to see the other?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe its their nice way of saying one of their movies bombed and everyone else went to see the other ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe its their nice way of saying one of their movies bombed and everyone else went to see the other?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31404304</id>
	<title>Re:you're kidding</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268081520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And sometimes ceci n'est pas une pipe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And sometimes ceci n'est pas une pipe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And sometimes ceci n'est pas une pipe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31394014</id>
	<title>Should had included images...</title>
	<author>antdude</author>
	<datestamp>1267958820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... for each analysis part.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... for each analysis part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... for each analysis part.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31399298</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah Not Really</title>
	<author>Whalou</author>
	<datestamp>1268053020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's pretty well established that the Alice books contained all kinds of references and allusions that would have gone straight over a child's head.</p></div></blockquote><p>
So what you're saying is that the Cliff Notes could have actually been a Cliff Word: "Woosh"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's pretty well established that the Alice books contained all kinds of references and allusions that would have gone straight over a child 's head .
So what you 're saying is that the Cliff Notes could have actually been a Cliff Word : " Woosh " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's pretty well established that the Alice books contained all kinds of references and allusions that would have gone straight over a child's head.
So what you're saying is that the Cliff Notes could have actually been a Cliff Word: "Woosh"?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31394626</id>
	<title>Re:Uh huh</title>
	<author>Robert Zenz</author>
	<datestamp>1267962300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait a minute, I thought there's no spoon?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait a minute , I thought there 's no spoon ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait a minute, I thought there's no spoon?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31399222</id>
	<title>Re:you're kidding</title>
	<author>meringuoid</author>
	<datestamp>1268051940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>a caterpillar sitting on a giant mushroom smoking a hookah</i>

<p>Actually, it was a perfectly ordinary mushroom of the normal sort of size. It only seemed like a giant mushroom because Alice, at the time, was extremely small.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a caterpillar sitting on a giant mushroom smoking a hookah Actually , it was a perfectly ordinary mushroom of the normal sort of size .
It only seemed like a giant mushroom because Alice , at the time , was extremely small .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a caterpillar sitting on a giant mushroom smoking a hookah

Actually, it was a perfectly ordinary mushroom of the normal sort of size.
It only seemed like a giant mushroom because Alice, at the time, was extremely small.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31394046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31394310</id>
	<title>If you had read the cliff notes thirty years ago</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267960440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you'd already know that "Alice" was a satire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you 'd already know that " Alice " was a satire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you'd already know that "Alice" was a satire.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31394056</id>
	<title>Re:-1, Don't Care?</title>
	<author>donaggie03</author>
	<datestamp>1267959000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You answered your own question.  It is 3D and had Johnny Depp.  Maybe you don't care, and I don't care, but those two points are definitely the cause of "the fuss."</htmltext>
<tokenext>You answered your own question .
It is 3D and had Johnny Depp .
Maybe you do n't care , and I do n't care , but those two points are definitely the cause of " the fuss .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You answered your own question.
It is 3D and had Johnny Depp.
Maybe you don't care, and I don't care, but those two points are definitely the cause of "the fuss.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31396046</id>
	<title>Re:All of the above and Cowboy Neal</title>
	<author>gardyloo</author>
	<datestamp>1267972380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In one of my high school English classes, we were tasked with delving into the real meaning of various poems. I chose Dodgson's <i>Hunting of the Snark</i>, since it had been one of my favorites for a while, and the ending, after all the build-up and so on, is brilliant.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; After doing some rather extensive phil-awful-sizing into the "meaning" of <i>Snark</i>, I finally had to rely on a series of letters that Dodgson wrote to several acquaintances. In those letters he was explicitly asked "What is the meaning?". His reply: Fun. No hidden meaning. No euphemisms, comments on current events, politics, theatre. Just random fun.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Luckily, it's pretty well-known that <i>Alice</i> and <i>Looking Glass</i> and some of his other works are a bit deeper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In one of my high school English classes , we were tasked with delving into the real meaning of various poems .
I chose Dodgson 's Hunting of the Snark , since it had been one of my favorites for a while , and the ending , after all the build-up and so on , is brilliant .
    After doing some rather extensive phil-awful-sizing into the " meaning " of Snark , I finally had to rely on a series of letters that Dodgson wrote to several acquaintances .
In those letters he was explicitly asked " What is the meaning ? " .
His reply : Fun .
No hidden meaning .
No euphemisms , comments on current events , politics , theatre .
Just random fun .
    Luckily , it 's pretty well-known that Alice and Looking Glass and some of his other works are a bit deeper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In one of my high school English classes, we were tasked with delving into the real meaning of various poems.
I chose Dodgson's Hunting of the Snark, since it had been one of my favorites for a while, and the ending, after all the build-up and so on, is brilliant.
    After doing some rather extensive phil-awful-sizing into the "meaning" of Snark, I finally had to rely on a series of letters that Dodgson wrote to several acquaintances.
In those letters he was explicitly asked "What is the meaning?".
His reply: Fun.
No hidden meaning.
No euphemisms, comments on current events, politics, theatre.
Just random fun.
    Luckily, it's pretty well-known that Alice and Looking Glass and some of his other works are a bit deeper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393940</id>
	<title>Re:You mean P2P isn't killing cinema??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267958400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Funniest thing I always take away from all the highest grossing movie bragging that the studios always do is that if they are grossing more each time, doesn't that mean the sales are going up? Or is the "highest grossing" concept complete BS they use simply to sell their movies. I lean more toward the latter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funniest thing I always take away from all the highest grossing movie bragging that the studios always do is that if they are grossing more each time , does n't that mean the sales are going up ?
Or is the " highest grossing " concept complete BS they use simply to sell their movies .
I lean more toward the latter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funniest thing I always take away from all the highest grossing movie bragging that the studios always do is that if they are grossing more each time, doesn't that mean the sales are going up?
Or is the "highest grossing" concept complete BS they use simply to sell their movies.
I lean more toward the latter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393514</id>
	<title>cash in now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267955460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>while it lasts cause this fad is like time travel right back to whenit was created 3d heh<br>what a twitty attempt at some wonder of tech ya know what i just saw</p><p>a p2p release you can download and YOU guessed it watch in 3d<br>now its gonna fade quick as the money goes ALL cause a p2p im sure</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>while it lasts cause this fad is like time travel right back to whenit was created 3d hehwhat a twitty attempt at some wonder of tech ya know what i just sawa p2p release you can download and YOU guessed it watch in 3dnow its gon na fade quick as the money goes ALL cause a p2p im sure</tokentext>
<sentencetext>while it lasts cause this fad is like time travel right back to whenit was created 3d hehwhat a twitty attempt at some wonder of tech ya know what i just sawa p2p release you can download and YOU guessed it watch in 3dnow its gonna fade quick as the money goes ALL cause a p2p im sure</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393986</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah Not Really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267958700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Judging intent is a phenomenally difficult task. To say Charles Dodgson was satirizing his trade can only be speculative, and it's just as easy to speculate that he wasn't. If an author writes a modern-day story involving a corrupt god, is he satirizing religion or is it merely just a story device he decided to use because he's religious and familiar with the concepts deity and good/bad?
<br> <br>
Ultimately, and I think you know this already, authors write what they know about. Dodgson knew math, so is it really so odd to think he included mathematical concepts in his story because he thought it would be cool?
<br> <br>
(Yes, I read the full article, and I see a whole lot of room for uncertainty.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Judging intent is a phenomenally difficult task .
To say Charles Dodgson was satirizing his trade can only be speculative , and it 's just as easy to speculate that he was n't .
If an author writes a modern-day story involving a corrupt god , is he satirizing religion or is it merely just a story device he decided to use because he 's religious and familiar with the concepts deity and good/bad ?
Ultimately , and I think you know this already , authors write what they know about .
Dodgson knew math , so is it really so odd to think he included mathematical concepts in his story because he thought it would be cool ?
( Yes , I read the full article , and I see a whole lot of room for uncertainty .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Judging intent is a phenomenally difficult task.
To say Charles Dodgson was satirizing his trade can only be speculative, and it's just as easy to speculate that he wasn't.
If an author writes a modern-day story involving a corrupt god, is he satirizing religion or is it merely just a story device he decided to use because he's religious and familiar with the concepts deity and good/bad?
Ultimately, and I think you know this already, authors write what they know about.
Dodgson knew math, so is it really so odd to think he included mathematical concepts in his story because he thought it would be cool?
(Yes, I read the full article, and I see a whole lot of room for uncertainty.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393560</id>
	<title>All of the above and Cowboy Neal</title>
	<author>sammyF70</author>
	<datestamp>1267955700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The nice (frustrating) thing about both Alice stories is that they can stand for pretty much everything. From the obvious ( one pill makes you larger<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... dumdidum) to the less obvious ( Alice is supposed to be Queen Victoria?). Unless you can ask Dodgson directly, my guess is that it's just a tale he concocted on the fly, using whatever was on his mind at the time (so, yeah, probably mathematics, queen Victoria and possibly perspective-stretching mushrooms).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The nice ( frustrating ) thing about both Alice stories is that they can stand for pretty much everything .
From the obvious ( one pill makes you larger ... dumdidum ) to the less obvious ( Alice is supposed to be Queen Victoria ? ) .
Unless you can ask Dodgson directly , my guess is that it 's just a tale he concocted on the fly , using whatever was on his mind at the time ( so , yeah , probably mathematics , queen Victoria and possibly perspective-stretching mushrooms ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The nice (frustrating) thing about both Alice stories is that they can stand for pretty much everything.
From the obvious ( one pill makes you larger ... dumdidum) to the less obvious ( Alice is supposed to be Queen Victoria?).
Unless you can ask Dodgson directly, my guess is that it's just a tale he concocted on the fly, using whatever was on his mind at the time (so, yeah, probably mathematics, queen Victoria and possibly perspective-stretching mushrooms).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_2037229_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_2037229_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31395388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_2037229_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31395654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31395392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31394226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_2037229_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31399222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31394046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_2037229_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31399892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31395392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31394226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_2037229_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31397122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_2037229_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_2037229_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31403862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31394966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_2037229_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31397022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_2037229_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31394476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_2037229_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31398714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_2037229_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31395278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_2037229_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31396462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_2037229_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31394348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_2037229_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31397306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_2037229_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31396218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_2037229_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31395428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_2037229_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31398432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_2037229_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31404304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_2037229_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_2037229_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31395142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_2037229_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31396046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_2037229_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31394056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_2037229_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31398778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31395262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_2037229_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_2037229_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_2037229_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_2037229_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31394904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_2037229_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31403364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_2037229_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31395368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_2037229_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31394626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_2037229_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31397214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_2037229_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31399298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_2037229_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31395554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_2037229_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31394800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_2037229_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31397560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31394678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_2037229_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_2037229.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31404304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31395554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31394046
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31399222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31395142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31397306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31394904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31395278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31395388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_2037229.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393514
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_2037229.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31394626
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_2037229.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31398714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31396046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393994
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_2037229.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31394678
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31397560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31394348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_2037229.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_2037229.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31394310
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_2037229.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31395262
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31398778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31394800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31394056
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_2037229.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31394226
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31395392
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31395654
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31399892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393656
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31403364
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31398432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393986
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31396218
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31394966
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31403862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31395368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31394476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31396462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393526
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31397214
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31399298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_2037229.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393630
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31397122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393774
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393598
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393754
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_2037229.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393746
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_2037229.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393940
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31395428
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_2037229.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31393864
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_2037229.31397022
</commentlist>
</conversation>
