<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_13_1335222</id>
	<title>Final Decision Deferred On ".xxx" Domains</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1268493540000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"The Associated Press reports that the board of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers has <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hxApKh0uIBQ2d3GQisMZB\_gk87dAD9ED7SAO1">deferred a decision until June on whether to create a '.xxx' Internet suffix</a> as an online red-light district, beginning a 70-day process of consultations on a domain that could help parents block access to adult sites. ICM Registry LLC first proposed the '.xxx' domain in 2000, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.xxx">ICANN has rejected it three times already since then</a>, but an outside panel last month questioned the board's <a href="http://politics.slashdot.org/story/07/03/30/1234202/ICANN-Rejects-XXX-Top-Level-Domain-Again">latest rejection in 2007</a>, prompting the board to reopen the bid. Backers of '.xxx' have billed the proposal as a way for the adult-entertainment industry to clean up its act, though some adult sites worry that governments would wind up mandating the use of '.xxx' and that sites with the '.xxx' suffix could easily be blocked by government web filters in the future. 'I am very concerned and fearful of censoring adult material that should be made available for adults. It scares the hell out of me,' says Malcolm Day, head of AdultShop.com, adding that if adult websites weren't allowed to have '.com' domains and could only register under the '.xxx' address, then '<a href="http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/xxx-domain-plan-scares-the-hell-out-of-me-malcolm-day-20100311-q0sx.html">many governments (across the world) would try to block them</a>.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " The Associated Press reports that the board of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers has deferred a decision until June on whether to create a '.xxx ' Internet suffix as an online red-light district , beginning a 70-day process of consultations on a domain that could help parents block access to adult sites .
ICM Registry LLC first proposed the '.xxx ' domain in 2000 , and ICANN has rejected it three times already since then , but an outside panel last month questioned the board 's latest rejection in 2007 , prompting the board to reopen the bid .
Backers of '.xxx ' have billed the proposal as a way for the adult-entertainment industry to clean up its act , though some adult sites worry that governments would wind up mandating the use of '.xxx ' and that sites with the '.xxx ' suffix could easily be blocked by government web filters in the future .
'I am very concerned and fearful of censoring adult material that should be made available for adults .
It scares the hell out of me, ' says Malcolm Day , head of AdultShop.com , adding that if adult websites were n't allowed to have '.com ' domains and could only register under the '.xxx ' address , then 'many governments ( across the world ) would try to block them .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "The Associated Press reports that the board of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers has deferred a decision until June on whether to create a '.xxx' Internet suffix as an online red-light district, beginning a 70-day process of consultations on a domain that could help parents block access to adult sites.
ICM Registry LLC first proposed the '.xxx' domain in 2000, and ICANN has rejected it three times already since then, but an outside panel last month questioned the board's latest rejection in 2007, prompting the board to reopen the bid.
Backers of '.xxx' have billed the proposal as a way for the adult-entertainment industry to clean up its act, though some adult sites worry that governments would wind up mandating the use of '.xxx' and that sites with the '.xxx' suffix could easily be blocked by government web filters in the future.
'I am very concerned and fearful of censoring adult material that should be made available for adults.
It scares the hell out of me,' says Malcolm Day, head of AdultShop.com, adding that if adult websites weren't allowed to have '.com' domains and could only register under the '.xxx' address, then 'many governments (across the world) would try to block them.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464116</id>
	<title>No shit?</title>
	<author>Rivalz</author>
	<datestamp>1268498040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And it is unheard of for organizations to block<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.cn<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.ru.
Still though I agree with most this would be ineffective and create more trouble then it alleviates.
It is too bad parents cant use something along the lines of websense to filter out adult content.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And it is unheard of for organizations to block .cn .ru .
Still though I agree with most this would be ineffective and create more trouble then it alleviates .
It is too bad parents cant use something along the lines of websense to filter out adult content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it is unheard of for organizations to block .cn .ru.
Still though I agree with most this would be ineffective and create more trouble then it alleviates.
It is too bad parents cant use something along the lines of websense to filter out adult content.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464624</id>
	<title>My picks for the .xxx domains in the US</title>
	<author>stoicfaux</author>
	<datestamp>1268502720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My initial list of what organizations that would be required to use<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx domains in the United States:</p><ul>
<li>abortion doctors</li><li>anything gay related such as dating sites, gay marriage rights, etc.</li><li>hate groups</li><li>offensive TV shows, such as South Park or Family Guy</li><li>offensive art (meaning nude is just as bad as naked)</li><li>offensive literature- Lolita, Catcher in the Rye</li><li>offensive music such as music that glorifies violence or uses the N-Word(tm)(c)(patent pending)</li><li>fringe religions such as polygamists, etc.</li></ul><p>and for the coup de gr&#226;ce, anything that would be considered offensive by local community standards would be automatically redirected to a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx address (<i>www.foo.com</i> -&gt; <i>www.foo.com.xxx</i>) by the local ISPs serving that community.</p><p>Finally, taking the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx idea to its logical conclusion, any adult oriented material can only be sold from<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx domains.  Books like Lolita or Catcher in the Rye, or "gansta" rap could only be sold from <b>www.amazon.xxx</b> or <b>www.itunes.xxx</b>.  Information about shows like South Park or Family Guy would be under <b>www.comedycentral.xxx</b> or <b>www.tvguide.xxx</b> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My initial list of what organizations that would be required to use .xxx domains in the United States : abortion doctorsanything gay related such as dating sites , gay marriage rights , etc.hate groupsoffensive TV shows , such as South Park or Family Guyoffensive art ( meaning nude is just as bad as naked ) offensive literature- Lolita , Catcher in the Ryeoffensive music such as music that glorifies violence or uses the N-Word ( tm ) ( c ) ( patent pending ) fringe religions such as polygamists , etc.and for the coup de gr   ce , anything that would be considered offensive by local community standards would be automatically redirected to a .xxx address ( www.foo.com - &gt; www.foo.com.xxx ) by the local ISPs serving that community.Finally , taking the .xxx idea to its logical conclusion , any adult oriented material can only be sold from .xxx domains .
Books like Lolita or Catcher in the Rye , or " gansta " rap could only be sold from www.amazon.xxx or www.itunes.xxx .
Information about shows like South Park or Family Guy would be under www.comedycentral.xxx or www.tvguide.xxx</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My initial list of what organizations that would be required to use .xxx domains in the United States:
abortion doctorsanything gay related such as dating sites, gay marriage rights, etc.hate groupsoffensive TV shows, such as South Park or Family Guyoffensive art (meaning nude is just as bad as naked)offensive literature- Lolita, Catcher in the Ryeoffensive music such as music that glorifies violence or uses the N-Word(tm)(c)(patent pending)fringe religions such as polygamists, etc.and for the coup de grâce, anything that would be considered offensive by local community standards would be automatically redirected to a .xxx address (www.foo.com -&gt; www.foo.com.xxx) by the local ISPs serving that community.Finally, taking the .xxx idea to its logical conclusion, any adult oriented material can only be sold from .xxx domains.
Books like Lolita or Catcher in the Rye, or "gansta" rap could only be sold from www.amazon.xxx or www.itunes.xxx.
Information about shows like South Park or Family Guy would be under www.comedycentral.xxx or www.tvguide.xxx </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464306</id>
	<title>Re:Only half a solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268499420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is why it should never happen. There would be no agreement and you can't force them to move to it anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is why it should never happen .
There would be no agreement and you ca n't force them to move to it anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is why it should never happen.
There would be no agreement and you can't force them to move to it anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31472574</id>
	<title>Re:Unfounded worry</title>
	<author>smi.james.th</author>
	<datestamp>1268586600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find it interesting that "morals" seem to be labelled as "facism" these days.  If it so happens that the ISP does respect family values or not want malware, and if you actually DO want malware and whatever porn you feel you need, then I'm sure there will be other ISPs that will be glad of your custom.
<br> <br>
Then we can all put our money where our mouths are, and let capitalism do the talking.  See what happens.  I am personally opposed to pornography, I think it's quite a despicable thing.  That's not the topic of this discussion though, so without going on any more about my own moral reservations, I'm in favour of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx domain, so that anyone who doesn't want to use it can avoid it more easily, and those who do want to can find it more easily.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it interesting that " morals " seem to be labelled as " facism " these days .
If it so happens that the ISP does respect family values or not want malware , and if you actually DO want malware and whatever porn you feel you need , then I 'm sure there will be other ISPs that will be glad of your custom .
Then we can all put our money where our mouths are , and let capitalism do the talking .
See what happens .
I am personally opposed to pornography , I think it 's quite a despicable thing .
That 's not the topic of this discussion though , so without going on any more about my own moral reservations , I 'm in favour of the .xxx domain , so that anyone who does n't want to use it can avoid it more easily , and those who do want to can find it more easily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it interesting that "morals" seem to be labelled as "facism" these days.
If it so happens that the ISP does respect family values or not want malware, and if you actually DO want malware and whatever porn you feel you need, then I'm sure there will be other ISPs that will be glad of your custom.
Then we can all put our money where our mouths are, and let capitalism do the talking.
See what happens.
I am personally opposed to pornography, I think it's quite a despicable thing.
That's not the topic of this discussion though, so without going on any more about my own moral reservations, I'm in favour of the .xxx domain, so that anyone who doesn't want to use it can avoid it more easily, and those who do want to can find it more easily.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464088</id>
	<title>Top level domains wont make for less pron</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268497860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dont get this kind of thinking. Creating a toplevel domain surely would make it easier for people to find the porn they're looking for. Nothing less, nothing more<br>But BANNING domains on that note, would as far as I can see only lead to the downfall of the toplevel domain, as porn providers would stop using it as it's not good business.</p><p>And in any event, I dont really see the currently invested xxx providers as being willing to give up their lucrative<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.org domains. So at most we'll get another toplevel domain that you need to register to "own" your own brand. Anyone for slashdot.xxx ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dont get this kind of thinking .
Creating a toplevel domain surely would make it easier for people to find the porn they 're looking for .
Nothing less , nothing moreBut BANNING domains on that note , would as far as I can see only lead to the downfall of the toplevel domain , as porn providers would stop using it as it 's not good business.And in any event , I dont really see the currently invested xxx providers as being willing to give up their lucrative .com or .org domains .
So at most we 'll get another toplevel domain that you need to register to " own " your own brand .
Anyone for slashdot.xxx ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dont get this kind of thinking.
Creating a toplevel domain surely would make it easier for people to find the porn they're looking for.
Nothing less, nothing moreBut BANNING domains on that note, would as far as I can see only lead to the downfall of the toplevel domain, as porn providers would stop using it as it's not good business.And in any event, I dont really see the currently invested xxx providers as being willing to give up their lucrative .com or .org domains.
So at most we'll get another toplevel domain that you need to register to "own" your own brand.
Anyone for slashdot.xxx ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31470224</id>
	<title>Re:Top level domains wont make for less pron</title>
	<author>Waccoon</author>
	<datestamp>1268507640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do sex toys even belong under<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx?  If a vibrator is put into an ordinary rubber ducky, does that make it ban-able?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do sex toys even belong under .xxx ?
If a vibrator is put into an ordinary rubber ducky , does that make it ban-able ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do sex toys even belong under .xxx?
If a vibrator is put into an ordinary rubber ducky, does that make it ban-able?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464122</id>
	<title>And it's still a horrible idea</title>
	<author>hackiavelli</author>
	<datestamp>1268498100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Putting aside the entire debate on what qualifies as adult material, you still have the fact that the undisputed pornographic websites aren't going to change TLDs unless forced to hence defeating the entire purpose.  It would also lead to the somewhat embarrassing situation of big companies like Google, Microsoft, and Apple having to buy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx domains to protect their trademarks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Putting aside the entire debate on what qualifies as adult material , you still have the fact that the undisputed pornographic websites are n't going to change TLDs unless forced to hence defeating the entire purpose .
It would also lead to the somewhat embarrassing situation of big companies like Google , Microsoft , and Apple having to buy .xxx domains to protect their trademarks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Putting aside the entire debate on what qualifies as adult material, you still have the fact that the undisputed pornographic websites aren't going to change TLDs unless forced to hence defeating the entire purpose.
It would also lead to the somewhat embarrassing situation of big companies like Google, Microsoft, and Apple having to buy .xxx domains to protect their trademarks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464548</id>
	<title>Re:Exactly backwards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268502120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I couldn't agree any more on this.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.KID should be created, not<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx won't solve a damn thing.</p><p>Any websites out there are free to create kid friendly versions of their websites too.<br>Of course, they'd have to follow very strict rules as to what people can do, such as no content embedding unless it is verified by staff. (which would essentially put most off from allowing it, period)</p><p>Of course, kid friendly websites are going to be the target of another person, why it is everyone's favorite friend, the pedofile.<br>Nothing you can do there really, unless you go through the awkward route of having to force any accounts to be verified by an adult and checked out through some route to make sure said kid actually exists.<br>Of course, if THEY have a kid, that is a whole other problem.</p><p>And a whole load of other tangled mess, but this is what happens when people get over emotional and start some bullshit Protect The Children crusade.<br>More like "Protect my kid because i never taught them a damn thing about life, give me free money too!"<br>Better yet, introduce a license to HAVE a kid in the first place.  If you are too stupid, you shouldn't be allowed, period, getting a bit sick of having to pay for other peoples stupidity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could n't agree any more on this .
.KID should be created , not .xxx , .xxx wo n't solve a damn thing.Any websites out there are free to create kid friendly versions of their websites too.Of course , they 'd have to follow very strict rules as to what people can do , such as no content embedding unless it is verified by staff .
( which would essentially put most off from allowing it , period ) Of course , kid friendly websites are going to be the target of another person , why it is everyone 's favorite friend , the pedofile.Nothing you can do there really , unless you go through the awkward route of having to force any accounts to be verified by an adult and checked out through some route to make sure said kid actually exists.Of course , if THEY have a kid , that is a whole other problem.And a whole load of other tangled mess , but this is what happens when people get over emotional and start some bullshit Protect The Children crusade.More like " Protect my kid because i never taught them a damn thing about life , give me free money too !
" Better yet , introduce a license to HAVE a kid in the first place .
If you are too stupid , you should n't be allowed , period , getting a bit sick of having to pay for other peoples stupidity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I couldn't agree any more on this.
.KID should be created, not .xxx, .xxx won't solve a damn thing.Any websites out there are free to create kid friendly versions of their websites too.Of course, they'd have to follow very strict rules as to what people can do, such as no content embedding unless it is verified by staff.
(which would essentially put most off from allowing it, period)Of course, kid friendly websites are going to be the target of another person, why it is everyone's favorite friend, the pedofile.Nothing you can do there really, unless you go through the awkward route of having to force any accounts to be verified by an adult and checked out through some route to make sure said kid actually exists.Of course, if THEY have a kid, that is a whole other problem.And a whole load of other tangled mess, but this is what happens when people get over emotional and start some bullshit Protect The Children crusade.More like "Protect my kid because i never taught them a damn thing about life, give me free money too!
"Better yet, introduce a license to HAVE a kid in the first place.
If you are too stupid, you shouldn't be allowed, period, getting a bit sick of having to pay for other peoples stupidity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464212</id>
	<title>final decision on disposition of man'kind' delayed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268498700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>probably not for much longer? pay attention, it's way affordable, &amp; could lead to your survival.</p><p>never a better time to consult with/trust in your creators.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>probably not for much longer ?
pay attention , it 's way affordable , &amp; could lead to your survival.never a better time to consult with/trust in your creators .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>probably not for much longer?
pay attention, it's way affordable, &amp; could lead to your survival.never a better time to consult with/trust in your creators.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31465674</id>
	<title>You can't filter the Internet, so just stop.</title>
	<author>geekmux</author>
	<datestamp>1268511300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't filter the Internet.  Ain't gonna happen.  No way in hell.  If you think you can, take a look at the rather futile attempts done today.  Websites and domain names are stood up by the hundreds every damn day, making the task pretty much impossible.  You can't even filter it, and now you want to try and put "content"(as defined by whom, yet another issue) into TLD "buckets"?  Riiiight. Give me a break.</p><p>Trying to control or filter the Internet is like trying to make the freeway safe for your new teen driver.  You're not going to be able to tell ALL the other cars on the road to get the hell away from you, so you do what is best and reasonable and you deal with it.  You teach your child about the Internet in much the same way you teach them to drive.  Learn and acknowledge that there are dangers.</p><p>Most of all, learn to be a responsible parent, and quit relying on other products that do nothing but censor and filter and generally piss off the rest of us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't filter the Internet .
Ai n't gon na happen .
No way in hell .
If you think you can , take a look at the rather futile attempts done today .
Websites and domain names are stood up by the hundreds every damn day , making the task pretty much impossible .
You ca n't even filter it , and now you want to try and put " content " ( as defined by whom , yet another issue ) into TLD " buckets " ?
Riiiight. Give me a break.Trying to control or filter the Internet is like trying to make the freeway safe for your new teen driver .
You 're not going to be able to tell ALL the other cars on the road to get the hell away from you , so you do what is best and reasonable and you deal with it .
You teach your child about the Internet in much the same way you teach them to drive .
Learn and acknowledge that there are dangers.Most of all , learn to be a responsible parent , and quit relying on other products that do nothing but censor and filter and generally piss off the rest of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't filter the Internet.
Ain't gonna happen.
No way in hell.
If you think you can, take a look at the rather futile attempts done today.
Websites and domain names are stood up by the hundreds every damn day, making the task pretty much impossible.
You can't even filter it, and now you want to try and put "content"(as defined by whom, yet another issue) into TLD "buckets"?
Riiiight. Give me a break.Trying to control or filter the Internet is like trying to make the freeway safe for your new teen driver.
You're not going to be able to tell ALL the other cars on the road to get the hell away from you, so you do what is best and reasonable and you deal with it.
You teach your child about the Internet in much the same way you teach them to drive.
Learn and acknowledge that there are dangers.Most of all, learn to be a responsible parent, and quit relying on other products that do nothing but censor and filter and generally piss off the rest of us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31465164</id>
	<title>as usual...</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1268507340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i say the basic problem is the non-national TLDs, at least as long as this planet is not under one government.</p><p>why? because as long as that is the case, there will be multiple, conflicting interests about those TLDs.</p><p>and sadly, thanks to the dot-com era and similar, the economic sharks smell money in relation to trade in domain names, meaning it will be nearly impossible to dismantle the existing system unless someone pays the owners of the non-national domains at least as much as they payed for them in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i say the basic problem is the non-national TLDs , at least as long as this planet is not under one government.why ?
because as long as that is the case , there will be multiple , conflicting interests about those TLDs.and sadly , thanks to the dot-com era and similar , the economic sharks smell money in relation to trade in domain names , meaning it will be nearly impossible to dismantle the existing system unless someone pays the owners of the non-national domains at least as much as they payed for them in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i say the basic problem is the non-national TLDs, at least as long as this planet is not under one government.why?
because as long as that is the case, there will be multiple, conflicting interests about those TLDs.and sadly, thanks to the dot-com era and similar, the economic sharks smell money in relation to trade in domain names, meaning it will be nearly impossible to dismantle the existing system unless someone pays the owners of the non-national domains at least as much as they payed for them in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464114</id>
	<title>The whole block/filter argument.</title>
	<author>The Living Fractal</author>
	<datestamp>1268498040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>and that sites with the '.xxx' suffix could easily be blocked by government web filters in the future.</p></div></blockquote><p>

It's already very easy to block adult sites.  This is pointless to mention and the real issue is not how easy it is to block these sites but that censorship in general is never a good idea, no matter how easy or hard it is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and that sites with the '.xxx ' suffix could easily be blocked by government web filters in the future .
It 's already very easy to block adult sites .
This is pointless to mention and the real issue is not how easy it is to block these sites but that censorship in general is never a good idea , no matter how easy or hard it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and that sites with the '.xxx' suffix could easily be blocked by government web filters in the future.
It's already very easy to block adult sites.
This is pointless to mention and the real issue is not how easy it is to block these sites but that censorship in general is never a good idea, no matter how easy or hard it is.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464478</id>
	<title>This is stupid!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268501340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TLDs are not a content classification system, those supporting<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx are admitting that they don't understand DNS and are unsuited to operate a TLD.  If someone wants to operate an alternate DNS root with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx, they can do that (and good luck with it).  There's no discussion or deliberation required.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TLDs are not a content classification system , those supporting .xxx are admitting that they do n't understand DNS and are unsuited to operate a TLD .
If someone wants to operate an alternate DNS root with .xxx , they can do that ( and good luck with it ) .
There 's no discussion or deliberation required .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TLDs are not a content classification system, those supporting .xxx are admitting that they don't understand DNS and are unsuited to operate a TLD.
If someone wants to operate an alternate DNS root with .xxx, they can do that (and good luck with it).
There's no discussion or deliberation required.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464144</id>
	<title>Re:Only half a solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268498280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, right. And who will decide what "obscene" means? The religious right? See the Tipper Gore comment above.<br>

With<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx, expect it to become opt-in. And then people know you watch porn. They have it in written form. This would be even worse if you had to apply for accessing specific<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx pages.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , right .
And who will decide what " obscene " means ?
The religious right ?
See the Tipper Gore comment above .
With .xxx , expect it to become opt-in .
And then people know you watch porn .
They have it in written form .
This would be even worse if you had to apply for accessing specific .xxx pages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, right.
And who will decide what "obscene" means?
The religious right?
See the Tipper Gore comment above.
With .xxx, expect it to become opt-in.
And then people know you watch porn.
They have it in written form.
This would be even worse if you had to apply for accessing specific .xxx pages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31468382</id>
	<title>TLD is a dumb place to do any filtering</title>
	<author>Adrian Lopez</author>
	<datestamp>1268487960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Filtering at the TLD level is an all or nothing proposition: either all of an *.xxx website's content is filtered (along with all other *.xxx sites) or none of it is. As far as filtering systems go, it is the coarsest and least intelligent. While I'd be very much opposed to any kind of government-mandated tagging and filtering, if your goal is to filter based on a webmaster's idea of what's obscene then you're much better off using something like Lawrence Lessig's H2M tag.</p><p>Of course, what I really want is for people to stop being so uptight about sex and nudity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Filtering at the TLD level is an all or nothing proposition : either all of an * .xxx website 's content is filtered ( along with all other * .xxx sites ) or none of it is .
As far as filtering systems go , it is the coarsest and least intelligent .
While I 'd be very much opposed to any kind of government-mandated tagging and filtering , if your goal is to filter based on a webmaster 's idea of what 's obscene then you 're much better off using something like Lawrence Lessig 's H2M tag.Of course , what I really want is for people to stop being so uptight about sex and nudity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Filtering at the TLD level is an all or nothing proposition: either all of an *.xxx website's content is filtered (along with all other *.xxx sites) or none of it is.
As far as filtering systems go, it is the coarsest and least intelligent.
While I'd be very much opposed to any kind of government-mandated tagging and filtering, if your goal is to filter based on a webmaster's idea of what's obscene then you're much better off using something like Lawrence Lessig's H2M tag.Of course, what I really want is for people to stop being so uptight about sex and nudity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31468110</id>
	<title>Re:Well</title>
	<author>NitroWolf</author>
	<datestamp>1268485800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My hobby is watching porn and masturbating.</p></div><p>Go 'way!  I'm 'batin!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My hobby is watching porn and masturbating.Go 'way !
I 'm 'batin !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My hobby is watching porn and masturbating.Go 'way!
I'm 'batin!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31467682</id>
	<title>And while we're at it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268482560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets make a *.hack domain for sites that hack your computer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets make a * .hack domain for sites that hack your computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets make a *.hack domain for sites that hack your computer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464510</id>
	<title>Re:Exactly backwards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268501700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forced ratings are a freedom of speech issue: Freedom of speech means you can neither be forced not to say what you want to say nor forced to say what you don't want to say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forced ratings are a freedom of speech issue : Freedom of speech means you can neither be forced not to say what you want to say nor forced to say what you do n't want to say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forced ratings are a freedom of speech issue: Freedom of speech means you can neither be forced not to say what you want to say nor forced to say what you don't want to say.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31468176</id>
	<title>Re:Exactly backwards</title>
	<author>Arccot</author>
	<datestamp>1268486400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People who want a "kid-safe" internet could insist in embedded ratings. Some HTML tag with "xxx, violence" or whatever else they want to put in. Easy to block. Easy to implement. And people don't have to worry about domain squatters trying to register slashdot.xxx to shake down established sites.</p></div><p>Sadly, this used to exist and W3 eliminated it, but I'm not sure why.<br> <br>

<a href="http://www.w3.org/PICS/" title="w3.org">PICS</a> [w3.org] was first. Then came <a href="http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/" title="w3.org">POWDER</a> [w3.org]. Then both were dropped. I haven't found a replacement for either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People who want a " kid-safe " internet could insist in embedded ratings .
Some HTML tag with " xxx , violence " or whatever else they want to put in .
Easy to block .
Easy to implement .
And people do n't have to worry about domain squatters trying to register slashdot.xxx to shake down established sites.Sadly , this used to exist and W3 eliminated it , but I 'm not sure why .
PICS [ w3.org ] was first .
Then came POWDER [ w3.org ] .
Then both were dropped .
I have n't found a replacement for either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who want a "kid-safe" internet could insist in embedded ratings.
Some HTML tag with "xxx, violence" or whatever else they want to put in.
Easy to block.
Easy to implement.
And people don't have to worry about domain squatters trying to register slashdot.xxx to shake down established sites.Sadly, this used to exist and W3 eliminated it, but I'm not sure why.
PICS [w3.org] was first.
Then came POWDER [w3.org].
Then both were dropped.
I haven't found a replacement for either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31466558</id>
	<title>Re:Its not stopping you from looking at pornograph</title>
	<author>aflag</author>
	<datestamp>1268473980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not like you can't resolve a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx using a DNS different from the one which has it blocked. Heck, it could even be a web service. You open resolver.com, a site full with ads where you just paste the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx address and, in turn, get the IP. So<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx is stupid no matter how you look at it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not like you ca n't resolve a .xxx using a DNS different from the one which has it blocked .
Heck , it could even be a web service .
You open resolver.com , a site full with ads where you just paste the .xxx address and , in turn , get the IP .
So .xxx is stupid no matter how you look at it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not like you can't resolve a .xxx using a DNS different from the one which has it blocked.
Heck, it could even be a web service.
You open resolver.com, a site full with ads where you just paste the .xxx address and, in turn, get the IP.
So .xxx is stupid no matter how you look at it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31468952</id>
	<title>Make .xxx immune to age verification</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268492880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't remember the poster, but it was definitely on Slashdot where I saw this idea suggested, so I can't take credit for it.</p><p>Make<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx immune from the legislation requiring age verification. No more entrance pages, no more 'adults only' or 'this site has porn, accept all this legalese', they can go straight to their front page. So for sites outside<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx, they can host adult content exactly the same way they do now, and for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx the onus is moved back on the visitor to see it's an adult domain and either not visit it, or have it filtered by their own software.</p><p>Thus, everybody wins. There's an incentive for purely adult sites to move to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx because they get legal advantages, the 'think of the children' crowd get a much easier time filtering the stuff they don't want, and the 'grey-area' sites that want to stay with their<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.org/.com/etc domains continue with age verification.</p><p>I'm of the mind that if countries did try and make all adult content go to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx, the big companies like Amazon, eBay, the search engines (Image search, anyone?), etc would block it. None of them would be willing to move domains for certain content, and take on all the management nightmare it would involve.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't remember the poster , but it was definitely on Slashdot where I saw this idea suggested , so I ca n't take credit for it.Make .xxx immune from the legislation requiring age verification .
No more entrance pages , no more 'adults only ' or 'this site has porn , accept all this legalese ' , they can go straight to their front page .
So for sites outside .xxx , they can host adult content exactly the same way they do now , and for .xxx the onus is moved back on the visitor to see it 's an adult domain and either not visit it , or have it filtered by their own software.Thus , everybody wins .
There 's an incentive for purely adult sites to move to .xxx because they get legal advantages , the 'think of the children ' crowd get a much easier time filtering the stuff they do n't want , and the 'grey-area ' sites that want to stay with their .org/.com/etc domains continue with age verification.I 'm of the mind that if countries did try and make all adult content go to .xxx , the big companies like Amazon , eBay , the search engines ( Image search , anyone ?
) , etc would block it .
None of them would be willing to move domains for certain content , and take on all the management nightmare it would involve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't remember the poster, but it was definitely on Slashdot where I saw this idea suggested, so I can't take credit for it.Make .xxx immune from the legislation requiring age verification.
No more entrance pages, no more 'adults only' or 'this site has porn, accept all this legalese', they can go straight to their front page.
So for sites outside .xxx, they can host adult content exactly the same way they do now, and for .xxx the onus is moved back on the visitor to see it's an adult domain and either not visit it, or have it filtered by their own software.Thus, everybody wins.
There's an incentive for purely adult sites to move to .xxx because they get legal advantages, the 'think of the children' crowd get a much easier time filtering the stuff they don't want, and the 'grey-area' sites that want to stay with their .org/.com/etc domains continue with age verification.I'm of the mind that if countries did try and make all adult content go to .xxx, the big companies like Amazon, eBay, the search engines (Image search, anyone?
), etc would block it.
None of them would be willing to move domains for certain content, and take on all the management nightmare it would involve.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31471796</id>
	<title>Coat of Arms of Amsterdam</title>
	<author>ardle</author>
	<datestamp>1268577660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat\_of\_arms\_of\_Amsterdam" title="wikipedia.org">The coat of arms may only be used by others than the city with the explicit permission of the municipal government. In general permission is not granted to others, because the coat of arms designates the city of Amsterdam. Individual elements, such as the three Saint Andrew's Crosses or the escutcheon may be used by others without permission.</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The coat of arms may only be used by others than the city with the explicit permission of the municipal government .
In general permission is not granted to others , because the coat of arms designates the city of Amsterdam .
Individual elements , such as the three Saint Andrew 's Crosses or the escutcheon may be used by others without permission .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The coat of arms may only be used by others than the city with the explicit permission of the municipal government.
In general permission is not granted to others, because the coat of arms designates the city of Amsterdam.
Individual elements, such as the three Saint Andrew's Crosses or the escutcheon may be used by others without permission.
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464070</id>
	<title>Exactly backwards</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1268497500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People who want a "kid-safe" Internet should create a G-rated TLD for their material and block everything else. Having an adult-only TLD is just asking for trouble. I am reminded of the effort in the 80's spearheaded by Tipper Gore to label record albums. It started with profanity and sex, and before long, they we're trying to put "occult" warnings on anything that deviated from (their version of) orthodox Christianity. Ghettoization always leads to extermination.</p><p>It's high time we called out the censors for using children as human shields.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People who want a " kid-safe " Internet should create a G-rated TLD for their material and block everything else .
Having an adult-only TLD is just asking for trouble .
I am reminded of the effort in the 80 's spearheaded by Tipper Gore to label record albums .
It started with profanity and sex , and before long , they we 're trying to put " occult " warnings on anything that deviated from ( their version of ) orthodox Christianity .
Ghettoization always leads to extermination.It 's high time we called out the censors for using children as human shields .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who want a "kid-safe" Internet should create a G-rated TLD for their material and block everything else.
Having an adult-only TLD is just asking for trouble.
I am reminded of the effort in the 80's spearheaded by Tipper Gore to label record albums.
It started with profanity and sex, and before long, they we're trying to put "occult" warnings on anything that deviated from (their version of) orthodox Christianity.
Ghettoization always leads to extermination.It's high time we called out the censors for using children as human shields.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31466888</id>
	<title>They will make decisions...</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1268476680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Clearly they are afraid to make a decision which is in and of itself a decision</p></div><p>
No, ICANN is willing to make decisions.  They just aren't willing to make decisions that make any fucking sense.  They have already decided some time ago to start selling TLDs outright, which will inevitably result in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx being sold outright to someone if they don't establish it first.  And being as it would make sense for them to establish it first so that they could make some small revenue from it, they will instead continue to table the issue until someone else sells it and it no longer matters.<br> <br>
Sometimes it seems that ICANN is itself being run by people who have as their own goals the destruction of ICANN.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly they are afraid to make a decision which is in and of itself a decision No , ICANN is willing to make decisions .
They just are n't willing to make decisions that make any fucking sense .
They have already decided some time ago to start selling TLDs outright , which will inevitably result in .xxx being sold outright to someone if they do n't establish it first .
And being as it would make sense for them to establish it first so that they could make some small revenue from it , they will instead continue to table the issue until someone else sells it and it no longer matters .
Sometimes it seems that ICANN is itself being run by people who have as their own goals the destruction of ICANN .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly they are afraid to make a decision which is in and of itself a decision
No, ICANN is willing to make decisions.
They just aren't willing to make decisions that make any fucking sense.
They have already decided some time ago to start selling TLDs outright, which will inevitably result in .xxx being sold outright to someone if they don't establish it first.
And being as it would make sense for them to establish it first so that they could make some small revenue from it, they will instead continue to table the issue until someone else sells it and it no longer matters.
Sometimes it seems that ICANN is itself being run by people who have as their own goals the destruction of ICANN.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31466864</id>
	<title>They would be stupid not to establish it now</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1268476440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>ICANN has already told us that they will move ahead with the plan to start selling top level domains (TLDs).  If they don't establish the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx TLD themselves, someone else will buy the rights to it.  They might as well establish it themselves now so that they can make slightly more direct revenue from it than if it is sold entirely to someone else who can then run it however they see fit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ICANN has already told us that they will move ahead with the plan to start selling top level domains ( TLDs ) .
If they do n't establish the .xxx TLD themselves , someone else will buy the rights to it .
They might as well establish it themselves now so that they can make slightly more direct revenue from it than if it is sold entirely to someone else who can then run it however they see fit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ICANN has already told us that they will move ahead with the plan to start selling top level domains (TLDs).
If they don't establish the .xxx TLD themselves, someone else will buy the rights to it.
They might as well establish it themselves now so that they can make slightly more direct revenue from it than if it is sold entirely to someone else who can then run it however they see fit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31465064</id>
	<title>Wanna think that over again?</title>
	<author>langelgjm</author>
	<datestamp>1268506740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>s/TLD/playground/g</htmltext>
<tokenext>s/TLD/playground/g</tokentext>
<sentencetext>s/TLD/playground/g</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464466</id>
	<title>This is many separate issues</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268501220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>do not confuse the issues.<br>
1)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx is a proposed domain for adult themed websites - not appropriate for children and ppl of a sensitive disposition - there is nothing wrong with this, it makes sense and is NOT censorship.<br>
2) filtering out certain websites at home or work is perfectly acceptable and is NOT censorship.<br>
3) the government or other ruling bodies prohibiting access to any sort of website IS censorship and it depends on your country if this acceptable/legal or not.<br>
whether or not to have a specific domain for specific content is NOT the same issue as web censorship.  as many people point out it is already easy enough to filter out what you don't want.</htmltext>
<tokenext>do not confuse the issues .
1 ) .xxx is a proposed domain for adult themed websites - not appropriate for children and ppl of a sensitive disposition - there is nothing wrong with this , it makes sense and is NOT censorship .
2 ) filtering out certain websites at home or work is perfectly acceptable and is NOT censorship .
3 ) the government or other ruling bodies prohibiting access to any sort of website IS censorship and it depends on your country if this acceptable/legal or not .
whether or not to have a specific domain for specific content is NOT the same issue as web censorship .
as many people point out it is already easy enough to filter out what you do n't want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>do not confuse the issues.
1) .xxx is a proposed domain for adult themed websites - not appropriate for children and ppl of a sensitive disposition - there is nothing wrong with this, it makes sense and is NOT censorship.
2) filtering out certain websites at home or work is perfectly acceptable and is NOT censorship.
3) the government or other ruling bodies prohibiting access to any sort of website IS censorship and it depends on your country if this acceptable/legal or not.
whether or not to have a specific domain for specific content is NOT the same issue as web censorship.
as many people point out it is already easy enough to filter out what you don't want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31468268</id>
	<title>Re:Top level domains wont make for less pron</title>
	<author>LordLucless</author>
	<datestamp>1268487120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The internet was <strong>designed</strong> to be segregated into different categories. Com = commercial, org = non-proft, gov = government, edu = educational. The problem is that the TLDs controlled by the US exercised no control over assignments to those domains,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com became a buzzword, and everyone grabbed for a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com, even if their content was better suited to another TLD.</p><p>In Australia, you have to have an ABN (Australian Business Number) to register a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com.au (it's not hard to get one, takes one phone call). You need to be a registered non-profit to get a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.org.au. For personal use, you can get an<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.id.au.</p><p>I have no problem in an<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx domain. If you're worried about being filtered (and I am - I'm in Australia after all), then you need to fight that battle where it counts - against filtering. As is stands, the non-country TLDs are largely pointless. The only reason to having more than one is to increase the namespace. Otherwise<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.org and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net are functionally identical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The internet was designed to be segregated into different categories .
Com = commercial , org = non-proft , gov = government , edu = educational .
The problem is that the TLDs controlled by the US exercised no control over assignments to those domains , .com became a buzzword , and everyone grabbed for a .com , even if their content was better suited to another TLD.In Australia , you have to have an ABN ( Australian Business Number ) to register a .com.au ( it 's not hard to get one , takes one phone call ) .
You need to be a registered non-profit to get a .org.au .
For personal use , you can get an .id.au.I have no problem in an .xxx domain .
If you 're worried about being filtered ( and I am - I 'm in Australia after all ) , then you need to fight that battle where it counts - against filtering .
As is stands , the non-country TLDs are largely pointless .
The only reason to having more than one is to increase the namespace .
Otherwise .com , .org and .net are functionally identical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The internet was designed to be segregated into different categories.
Com = commercial, org = non-proft, gov = government, edu = educational.
The problem is that the TLDs controlled by the US exercised no control over assignments to those domains, .com became a buzzword, and everyone grabbed for a .com, even if their content was better suited to another TLD.In Australia, you have to have an ABN (Australian Business Number) to register a .com.au (it's not hard to get one, takes one phone call).
You need to be a registered non-profit to get a .org.au.
For personal use, you can get an .id.au.I have no problem in an .xxx domain.
If you're worried about being filtered (and I am - I'm in Australia after all), then you need to fight that battle where it counts - against filtering.
As is stands, the non-country TLDs are largely pointless.
The only reason to having more than one is to increase the namespace.
Otherwise .com, .org and .net are functionally identical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31465128</id>
	<title>Re:Exactly backwards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268507100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no different then the "enter date of birth" or "warning, naked titties beyond this point" front pages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no different then the " enter date of birth " or " warning , naked titties beyond this point " front pages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no different then the "enter date of birth" or "warning, naked titties beyond this point" front pages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31465456</id>
	<title>Re:This Whole Debate Is Lasting Longer Than '4 Hou</title>
	<author>Superdarion</author>
	<datestamp>1268509620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, according to the wikipedia article linked, they HAVE made that decision some times before. They have already said NO to it, it's just that people keep reopening the case for them to consider with "new evidence". <br> <br>

In my opinion, they're just giving a fair and thorough consideration of every bit of information given to them... before they say No a fourth time, hopefully.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , according to the wikipedia article linked , they HAVE made that decision some times before .
They have already said NO to it , it 's just that people keep reopening the case for them to consider with " new evidence " .
In my opinion , they 're just giving a fair and thorough consideration of every bit of information given to them... before they say No a fourth time , hopefully .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, according to the wikipedia article linked, they HAVE made that decision some times before.
They have already said NO to it, it's just that people keep reopening the case for them to consider with "new evidence".
In my opinion, they're just giving a fair and thorough consideration of every bit of information given to them... before they say No a fourth time, hopefully.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31465422</id>
	<title>mod uP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268509260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>are abou7 7000/5</htmltext>
<tokenext>are abou7 7000/5</tokentext>
<sentencetext>are abou7 7000/5</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464156</id>
	<title>Re:Only half a solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268498340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I'm all in favor of a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx TLD, but it does no good unless accompanied by laws that mandate that obscene sites use only that TLD.</p><p>Of course! We'll implement it as soon as soon as you come up with a worldwide definition of 'obscene'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I 'm all in favor of a .xxx TLD , but it does no good unless accompanied by laws that mandate that obscene sites use only that TLD.Of course !
We 'll implement it as soon as soon as you come up with a worldwide definition of 'obscene' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I'm all in favor of a .xxx TLD, but it does no good unless accompanied by laws that mandate that obscene sites use only that TLD.Of course!
We'll implement it as soon as soon as you come up with a worldwide definition of 'obscene'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464168</id>
	<title>Double Standards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268498400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So who's to say what is "adult" and what is not? Some things are pretty easy to figure out, but I know plenty of art sites like deviantart that allow uploading of nude photos. Does that make it an adult website? Somebody is going to have to make decisions about these things and I think it would be all too easy to simply turn it into a place for all "objectionable content", whatever that may mean, pretty much destroying the idea of the internet as a bastion of free speech.

Then again, I can't remember how many times I've gone to dicks.com thinking I'd end up at the sports shop website... but that is a risk that parents should take into account when allowing their kids onto the internet. They'd be better off outside anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So who 's to say what is " adult " and what is not ?
Some things are pretty easy to figure out , but I know plenty of art sites like deviantart that allow uploading of nude photos .
Does that make it an adult website ?
Somebody is going to have to make decisions about these things and I think it would be all too easy to simply turn it into a place for all " objectionable content " , whatever that may mean , pretty much destroying the idea of the internet as a bastion of free speech .
Then again , I ca n't remember how many times I 've gone to dicks.com thinking I 'd end up at the sports shop website... but that is a risk that parents should take into account when allowing their kids onto the internet .
They 'd be better off outside anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So who's to say what is "adult" and what is not?
Some things are pretty easy to figure out, but I know plenty of art sites like deviantart that allow uploading of nude photos.
Does that make it an adult website?
Somebody is going to have to make decisions about these things and I think it would be all too easy to simply turn it into a place for all "objectionable content", whatever that may mean, pretty much destroying the idea of the internet as a bastion of free speech.
Then again, I can't remember how many times I've gone to dicks.com thinking I'd end up at the sports shop website... but that is a risk that parents should take into account when allowing their kids onto the internet.
They'd be better off outside anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464132</id>
	<title>YRO?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268498160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> It scares the hell out of me,' says Malcolm Day, head of AdultShop.com, adding that if adult websites weren't allowed to have '.com' domains and could only register under the '.xxx' address, then 'many governments (across the world) would try to block them.'"</p></div><p>
They better not try that here, we have the Human Rights Act<br>
<br>
(I don't care what anyone else says, fapping is a human right..)<br>
<br>
I have the weight of the legal world behind me! (most of them are wankers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-&gt;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It scares the hell out of me, ' says Malcolm Day , head of AdultShop.com , adding that if adult websites were n't allowed to have '.com ' domains and could only register under the '.xxx ' address , then 'many governments ( across the world ) would try to block them .
' " They better not try that here , we have the Human Rights Act ( I do n't care what anyone else says , fapping is a human right.. ) I have the weight of the legal world behind me !
( most of them are wankers : - &gt; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It scares the hell out of me,' says Malcolm Day, head of AdultShop.com, adding that if adult websites weren't allowed to have '.com' domains and could only register under the '.xxx' address, then 'many governments (across the world) would try to block them.
'"
They better not try that here, we have the Human Rights Act

(I don't care what anyone else says, fapping is a human right..)

I have the weight of the legal world behind me!
(most of them are wankers :-&gt;)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464798</id>
	<title>Re:Unfounded worry</title>
	<author>cyn1c77</author>
	<datestamp>1268504580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It seems to me that a government could not legally block the TLD unless porn was actually illegal in that country.</p></div><p>But your internet provider could choose not to serve that content, saying that it was a company that respected family values and that those sites had high potential for malware infections.  </p><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd rather some potential sex offender spend all his time looking at porn then go out and rape some poor woman.</p> </div><p>Potential sex offenders will become sex offenders regardless of their access to porn.  </p><p>The real question for me is "Does an ".xxx" provide the public with any value?  The only value I can see is that it will make it easy for groups to censor adult material.  So I am totally against approving the existence of ".xxx" sites.  Let's keep it difficult for the wannabe fascists.   </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that a government could not legally block the TLD unless porn was actually illegal in that country.But your internet provider could choose not to serve that content , saying that it was a company that respected family values and that those sites had high potential for malware infections .
I 'd rather some potential sex offender spend all his time looking at porn then go out and rape some poor woman .
Potential sex offenders will become sex offenders regardless of their access to porn .
The real question for me is " Does an " .xxx " provide the public with any value ?
The only value I can see is that it will make it easy for groups to censor adult material .
So I am totally against approving the existence of " .xxx " sites .
Let 's keep it difficult for the wannabe fascists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me that a government could not legally block the TLD unless porn was actually illegal in that country.But your internet provider could choose not to serve that content, saying that it was a company that respected family values and that those sites had high potential for malware infections.
I'd rather some potential sex offender spend all his time looking at porn then go out and rape some poor woman.
Potential sex offenders will become sex offenders regardless of their access to porn.
The real question for me is "Does an ".xxx" provide the public with any value?
The only value I can see is that it will make it easy for groups to censor adult material.
So I am totally against approving the existence of ".xxx" sites.
Let's keep it difficult for the wannabe fascists.   
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464728</id>
	<title>Its not stopping you from looking at pornography</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268503800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its not stopping you from looking at pornography,it will stop you from looking at pornography at work,libraries,schools. Places pornography doesn't belong anyways. The XXX domain will not stop anyone from viewing porn,and the governments that don't want or allow porn are blocking it now. I'm betting most of you here are too young to remember before the internet and pornography,it wasn't out in the open for children and people that didn't want to see it,it was in brown paper wrappers,or sold in adult only shops. And whats pornography?? its whatever gets your dick hard or pussy wet,its just that simple.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its not stopping you from looking at pornography,it will stop you from looking at pornography at work,libraries,schools .
Places pornography does n't belong anyways .
The XXX domain will not stop anyone from viewing porn,and the governments that do n't want or allow porn are blocking it now .
I 'm betting most of you here are too young to remember before the internet and pornography,it was n't out in the open for children and people that did n't want to see it,it was in brown paper wrappers,or sold in adult only shops .
And whats pornography ? ?
its whatever gets your dick hard or pussy wet,its just that simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its not stopping you from looking at pornography,it will stop you from looking at pornography at work,libraries,schools.
Places pornography doesn't belong anyways.
The XXX domain will not stop anyone from viewing porn,and the governments that don't want or allow porn are blocking it now.
I'm betting most of you here are too young to remember before the internet and pornography,it wasn't out in the open for children and people that didn't want to see it,it was in brown paper wrappers,or sold in adult only shops.
And whats pornography??
its whatever gets your dick hard or pussy wet,its just that simple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464092</id>
	<title>Only half a solution</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1268497860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm all in favor of a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx TLD, but it does no good unless accompanied by laws that mandate that obscene sites use only that TLD. I look forward to "goatse.cx" moving to the much more obvious "goatse.xxx", and I wonder... is there a waiting list to register the "se.xxx" domain, or is that already reserved for Swedish porn?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm all in favor of a .xxx TLD , but it does no good unless accompanied by laws that mandate that obscene sites use only that TLD .
I look forward to " goatse.cx " moving to the much more obvious " goatse.xxx " , and I wonder... is there a waiting list to register the " se.xxx " domain , or is that already reserved for Swedish porn ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm all in favor of a .xxx TLD, but it does no good unless accompanied by laws that mandate that obscene sites use only that TLD.
I look forward to "goatse.cx" moving to the much more obvious "goatse.xxx", and I wonder... is there a waiting list to register the "se.xxx" domain, or is that already reserved for Swedish porn?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464360</id>
	<title>Re:Exactly backwards</title>
	<author>desertfool</author>
	<datestamp>1268500020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like the idea to create a kid friendly TLD. How about<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.kid? It would make the net nannying a lot easier.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like the idea to create a kid friendly TLD .
How about .kid ?
It would make the net nannying a lot easier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like the idea to create a kid friendly TLD.
How about .kid?
It would make the net nannying a lot easier.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464078</id>
	<title>Well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268497560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"We are only human", "men would have raped without porn" and/or "It is only natural" aren't very good excuses for the existence of porn anyway.<br> <br>Find a hobby.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We are only human " , " men would have raped without porn " and/or " It is only natural " are n't very good excuses for the existence of porn anyway .
Find a hobby .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We are only human", "men would have raped without porn" and/or "It is only natural" aren't very good excuses for the existence of porn anyway.
Find a hobby.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31467766</id>
	<title>What would get a .xxx?</title>
	<author>aldld</author>
	<datestamp>1268483280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So would the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx domain go only to hardcore porn sites, or would it also include anything with nudity, including nude art? What about drawings of stick figures having sex? I would hate to have xkcd blocked by the government.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So would the .xxx domain go only to hardcore porn sites , or would it also include anything with nudity , including nude art ?
What about drawings of stick figures having sex ?
I would hate to have xkcd blocked by the government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So would the .xxx domain go only to hardcore porn sites, or would it also include anything with nudity, including nude art?
What about drawings of stick figures having sex?
I would hate to have xkcd blocked by the government.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31465376</id>
	<title>Re:Exactly backwards</title>
	<author>nitrowing</author>
	<datestamp>1268509080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I used to run 30 sites years ago and suggested the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.kid TLD. At the time, disney had managed to make www.disney.kid active and I thought 'Good on them'. IRL we try to keep children away from the negative elements of society by herding them in to schools, playgroups etc - why not do the same with the internet? I'll tell you why, the pay-per-click promoters freaked out! Without innocent netters randomly clicking banners, their revenues would drop<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:( Arguing about the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.kid TLD would attract pedo's is nonsense. This TLD could be monitored by all the TotC crowd to their hearts' content, websites could be heavily fined and/or shut down and parents could more easily lock down their child's browsing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to run 30 sites years ago and suggested the .kid TLD .
At the time , disney had managed to make www.disney.kid active and I thought 'Good on them' .
IRL we try to keep children away from the negative elements of society by herding them in to schools , playgroups etc - why not do the same with the internet ?
I 'll tell you why , the pay-per-click promoters freaked out !
Without innocent netters randomly clicking banners , their revenues would drop : ( Arguing about the .kid TLD would attract pedo 's is nonsense .
This TLD could be monitored by all the TotC crowd to their hearts ' content , websites could be heavily fined and/or shut down and parents could more easily lock down their child 's browsing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to run 30 sites years ago and suggested the .kid TLD.
At the time, disney had managed to make www.disney.kid active and I thought 'Good on them'.
IRL we try to keep children away from the negative elements of society by herding them in to schools, playgroups etc - why not do the same with the internet?
I'll tell you why, the pay-per-click promoters freaked out!
Without innocent netters randomly clicking banners, their revenues would drop :( Arguing about the .kid TLD would attract pedo's is nonsense.
This TLD could be monitored by all the TotC crowd to their hearts' content, websites could be heavily fined and/or shut down and parents could more easily lock down their child's browsing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31467960</id>
	<title>Re:This Whole Debate Is Lasting Longer Than '4 Hou</title>
	<author>gmhowell</author>
	<datestamp>1268484720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or as Pert, Lifeson, and Lee put it: "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or as Pert , Lifeson , and Lee put it : " if you choose not to decide , you still have made a choice .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or as Pert, Lifeson, and Lee put it: "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464372</id>
	<title>Re:Well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268500020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My hobby is watching porn and masturbating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My hobby is watching porn and masturbating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My hobby is watching porn and masturbating.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464920</id>
	<title>Re:Exactly backwards</title>
	<author>digitig</author>
	<datestamp>1268505600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In most places erotica is legal for adults, so a complete ban on xxx sites seems unlikely. Even most countries that have web filtering havent't tried to block all erotica, because the sex industry does actually have lobbying power. Frankly, I like clear labelling. If I want erotica I'd like to be able to find it. If I don't want erotica then I'd like to be able to avoid it. Same as hydrogenated fats, and same as some people with GM soya. Why is the sex industry almost as bad as the food industry over trying to hide what the content of their products really is?</htmltext>
<tokenext>In most places erotica is legal for adults , so a complete ban on xxx sites seems unlikely .
Even most countries that have web filtering havent't tried to block all erotica , because the sex industry does actually have lobbying power .
Frankly , I like clear labelling .
If I want erotica I 'd like to be able to find it .
If I do n't want erotica then I 'd like to be able to avoid it .
Same as hydrogenated fats , and same as some people with GM soya .
Why is the sex industry almost as bad as the food industry over trying to hide what the content of their products really is ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In most places erotica is legal for adults, so a complete ban on xxx sites seems unlikely.
Even most countries that have web filtering havent't tried to block all erotica, because the sex industry does actually have lobbying power.
Frankly, I like clear labelling.
If I want erotica I'd like to be able to find it.
If I don't want erotica then I'd like to be able to avoid it.
Same as hydrogenated fats, and same as some people with GM soya.
Why is the sex industry almost as bad as the food industry over trying to hide what the content of their products really is?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464184</id>
	<title>Filtering would be the ONLY reason to have it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268498520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they could force them into the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx domain...I would be for that...everyone knows where to go if they want it...easily blocked. However, you can't force them, so there is no reason at all to do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they could force them into the .xxx domain...I would be for that...everyone knows where to go if they want it...easily blocked .
However , you ca n't force them , so there is no reason at all to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they could force them into the .xxx domain...I would be for that...everyone knows where to go if they want it...easily blocked.
However, you can't force them, so there is no reason at all to do it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31480758</id>
	<title>OMG!</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1268661360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just get it up already, move all the p0rn stuff to those sites, and then any p0rn caught not on those sites, get deleted from the web, not only can you properly monitor the p0rn web stuff for whatever x reason you have as gov., but also makes it safer for kids for a filter to just block a domain extension then an actual full list!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just get it up already , move all the p0rn stuff to those sites , and then any p0rn caught not on those sites , get deleted from the web , not only can you properly monitor the p0rn web stuff for whatever x reason you have as gov. , but also makes it safer for kids for a filter to just block a domain extension then an actual full list !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just get it up already, move all the p0rn stuff to those sites, and then any p0rn caught not on those sites, get deleted from the web, not only can you properly monitor the p0rn web stuff for whatever x reason you have as gov., but also makes it safer for kids for a filter to just block a domain extension then an actual full list!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31465050</id>
	<title>Re:Only half a solution</title>
	<author>KingMotley</author>
	<datestamp>1268506620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It does plenty of good, if you create a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx TLD and a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.kid TLD.  You can be *reasonably* assured of the content of sites using those TLDs.  Now I don't expect that a site that has a majority of adult content to be forced to register a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com domain for those pages that contain absolutely no adult material, nor would I expect them to be forced to register a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx TLD, but being on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.kid wouldn't be appropriate.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx -&gt; almost guaranteed adult material<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.kid -&gt; reasonably child safe<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com/.net/.org -&gt; Anything including content appropriate for kids, and adults.</p><p>That way the christian purists that limit their kids to the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.kid domain and firefox/chrome can automatically delete all history/cookies whenever I visit tehfapsite.xxx.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does plenty of good , if you create a .xxx TLD and a .kid TLD .
You can be * reasonably * assured of the content of sites using those TLDs .
Now I do n't expect that a site that has a majority of adult content to be forced to register a .com domain for those pages that contain absolutely no adult material , nor would I expect them to be forced to register a .xxx TLD , but being on .kid would n't be appropriate .
.xxx - &gt; almost guaranteed adult material .kid - &gt; reasonably child safe .com/.net/.org - &gt; Anything including content appropriate for kids , and adults.That way the christian purists that limit their kids to the .kid domain and firefox/chrome can automatically delete all history/cookies whenever I visit tehfapsite.xxx .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It does plenty of good, if you create a .xxx TLD and a .kid TLD.
You can be *reasonably* assured of the content of sites using those TLDs.
Now I don't expect that a site that has a majority of adult content to be forced to register a .com domain for those pages that contain absolutely no adult material, nor would I expect them to be forced to register a .xxx TLD, but being on .kid wouldn't be appropriate.
.xxx -&gt; almost guaranteed adult material .kid -&gt; reasonably child safe .com/.net/.org -&gt; Anything including content appropriate for kids, and adults.That way the christian purists that limit their kids to the .kid domain and firefox/chrome can automatically delete all history/cookies whenever I visit tehfapsite.xxx.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31465542</id>
	<title>Re:Top level domains wont make for less pron</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268510280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Until countries make laws requiring "all websites with adult content in them are required to register under the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx domain".</p></div><p>Domain registry rules come from the registrars, a law in ireland requiring all irish pronographers to use the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx TLD would be stupid an ineffective as there would still be plenty of non-irish porn on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com/.org/.us</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Ever go to Amazon? Amazon sells adult videos... Should the stuff that some people don't like be moved to a special amazon.xxx?</p></div><p>And that is different from the current problems with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com/.org/.net ambiguity how?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Creating the domain is but one step in the process of segregating the internet into various categories.</p></div><p>I wonder what we could call this categories of websites?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Once you require everything to be in neat little categories you can start to control access to those categories, track them, etc.</p> </div><p>We should drop domains entirely then?</p><p>Given how ineffective ICANN have been at enforcing existing domain systems, it's not something you notice but the point of domains is so that when you access a site you know what your getting from the domain.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx would mean your getting adult material,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com means commercial material, etc. Obviously some sites are eligible for both (slashdot is a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.org, reddit is a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com, and don't get me started on domain hacks), so using<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx a filter would be impossible unless ICANN<br>1) made a rule that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.org etc could not contain porn<br>2) enforced their rules<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx would be a great optional domain for pornographic material, it shouldn't be catch all for anything remotely adult but useful to know your on your way to porn.</p><p>I'm not saying that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx is a great idea just that you are retarded and paranoid.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Until countries make laws requiring " all websites with adult content in them are required to register under the .xxx domain " .Domain registry rules come from the registrars , a law in ireland requiring all irish pronographers to use the .xxx TLD would be stupid an ineffective as there would still be plenty of non-irish porn on .com/.org/.usEver go to Amazon ?
Amazon sells adult videos... Should the stuff that some people do n't like be moved to a special amazon.xxx ? And that is different from the current problems with .com/.org/.net ambiguity how ? Creating the domain is but one step in the process of segregating the internet into various categories.I wonder what we could call this categories of websites ? Once you require everything to be in neat little categories you can start to control access to those categories , track them , etc .
We should drop domains entirely then ? Given how ineffective ICANN have been at enforcing existing domain systems , it 's not something you notice but the point of domains is so that when you access a site you know what your getting from the domain .
.xxx would mean your getting adult material , .com means commercial material , etc .
Obviously some sites are eligible for both ( slashdot is a .org , reddit is a .com , and do n't get me started on domain hacks ) , so using .xxx a filter would be impossible unless ICANN1 ) made a rule that .com .org etc could not contain porn2 ) enforced their rules .xxx would be a great optional domain for pornographic material , it should n't be catch all for anything remotely adult but useful to know your on your way to porn.I 'm not saying that .xxx is a great idea just that you are retarded and paranoid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until countries make laws requiring "all websites with adult content in them are required to register under the .xxx domain".Domain registry rules come from the registrars, a law in ireland requiring all irish pronographers to use the .xxx TLD would be stupid an ineffective as there would still be plenty of non-irish porn on .com/.org/.usEver go to Amazon?
Amazon sells adult videos... Should the stuff that some people don't like be moved to a special amazon.xxx?And that is different from the current problems with .com/.org/.net ambiguity how?Creating the domain is but one step in the process of segregating the internet into various categories.I wonder what we could call this categories of websites?Once you require everything to be in neat little categories you can start to control access to those categories, track them, etc.
We should drop domains entirely then?Given how ineffective ICANN have been at enforcing existing domain systems, it's not something you notice but the point of domains is so that when you access a site you know what your getting from the domain.
.xxx would mean your getting adult material, .com means commercial material, etc.
Obviously some sites are eligible for both (slashdot is a .org, reddit is a .com, and don't get me started on domain hacks), so using .xxx a filter would be impossible unless ICANN1) made a rule that .com .org etc could not contain porn2) enforced their rules .xxx would be a great optional domain for pornographic material, it shouldn't be catch all for anything remotely adult but useful to know your on your way to porn.I'm not saying that .xxx is a great idea just that you are retarded and paranoid.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464304</id>
	<title>Clean porn ? No thanks !</title>
	<author>ciderVisor</author>
	<datestamp>1268499420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Backers of '.xxx' have billed the proposal as a way for the adult-entertainment industry to clean up its act,"</p><p>Personally, I'd prefer if they kept the acts nice 'n' dirty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Backers of '.xxx ' have billed the proposal as a way for the adult-entertainment industry to clean up its act , " Personally , I 'd prefer if they kept the acts nice 'n ' dirty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Backers of '.xxx' have billed the proposal as a way for the adult-entertainment industry to clean up its act,"Personally, I'd prefer if they kept the acts nice 'n' dirty.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464264</id>
	<title>Re:Well</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1268499180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would you need a good excuse for porn anyway. You don't need to say "But I'm only human" or that porn saves people from getting raped. You can just say you enjoy fapping every now and then, it's not a secret that everyone does it. Even some girls do it daily, and it's also fun thing to do with your girlfriend. Those who are against porn have issues, not those who like to enjoy life and along with it sexuality too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would you need a good excuse for porn anyway .
You do n't need to say " But I 'm only human " or that porn saves people from getting raped .
You can just say you enjoy fapping every now and then , it 's not a secret that everyone does it .
Even some girls do it daily , and it 's also fun thing to do with your girlfriend .
Those who are against porn have issues , not those who like to enjoy life and along with it sexuality too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would you need a good excuse for porn anyway.
You don't need to say "But I'm only human" or that porn saves people from getting raped.
You can just say you enjoy fapping every now and then, it's not a secret that everyone does it.
Even some girls do it daily, and it's also fun thing to do with your girlfriend.
Those who are against porn have issues, not those who like to enjoy life and along with it sexuality too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31465308</id>
	<title>Re:This Whole Debate Is Lasting Longer Than '4 Hou</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1268508420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know, if I were the ICANN, I would be annoyed that this issue keeps coming up.  They already rejected it three times, give it a rest already.  I would be tempted to just keep 'considering' the issue indefinitely, so I don't have to deal with it again.<br> <br>
It's also possible that they are required by their bylaws to consider such proposals for a certain number of days before deciding.  I really can't imagine they will hear any new arguments they haven't heard before.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know , if I were the ICANN , I would be annoyed that this issue keeps coming up .
They already rejected it three times , give it a rest already .
I would be tempted to just keep 'considering ' the issue indefinitely , so I do n't have to deal with it again .
It 's also possible that they are required by their bylaws to consider such proposals for a certain number of days before deciding .
I really ca n't imagine they will hear any new arguments they have n't heard before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know, if I were the ICANN, I would be annoyed that this issue keeps coming up.
They already rejected it three times, give it a rest already.
I would be tempted to just keep 'considering' the issue indefinitely, so I don't have to deal with it again.
It's also possible that they are required by their bylaws to consider such proposals for a certain number of days before deciding.
I really can't imagine they will hear any new arguments they haven't heard before.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31465554</id>
	<title>OH NOES</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268510340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The children might see SEX. Quick sacrifice everyone's freedom!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The children might see SEX .
Quick sacrifice everyone 's freedom !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The children might see SEX.
Quick sacrifice everyone's freedom!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464580</id>
	<title>Re:Exactly backwards</title>
	<author>S.O.B.</author>
	<datestamp>1268502300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A kid friendly TLD is another way of saying pedophile friendly TLD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A kid friendly TLD is another way of saying pedophile friendly TLD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A kid friendly TLD is another way of saying pedophile friendly TLD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464118</id>
	<title>Unfounded worry</title>
	<author>tompaulco</author>
	<datestamp>1268498040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems to me that a government could not legally block the TLD unless porn was actually illegal in that country. Therefore the only argument that I am hearing is that the porn industry worries that this TLD would make it too easy for the government to restrict them from operating illegally.<br>
I'm not speaking out against porn, just trying to think logically. Porn doesn't bother me much. I'd rather some potential sex offender spend all his time looking at porn then go out and rape some poor woman.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that a government could not legally block the TLD unless porn was actually illegal in that country .
Therefore the only argument that I am hearing is that the porn industry worries that this TLD would make it too easy for the government to restrict them from operating illegally .
I 'm not speaking out against porn , just trying to think logically .
Porn does n't bother me much .
I 'd rather some potential sex offender spend all his time looking at porn then go out and rape some poor woman .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me that a government could not legally block the TLD unless porn was actually illegal in that country.
Therefore the only argument that I am hearing is that the porn industry worries that this TLD would make it too easy for the government to restrict them from operating illegally.
I'm not speaking out against porn, just trying to think logically.
Porn doesn't bother me much.
I'd rather some potential sex offender spend all his time looking at porn then go out and rape some poor woman.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31465544</id>
	<title>Re:Top level domains wont make for less pron</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268510280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do a search for adult movies on amazon and you get Adventures in Baby Sitting (Elizabeth Shue version) .<br>Maybe the amazon.xxx store would be better ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do a search for adult movies on amazon and you get Adventures in Baby Sitting ( Elizabeth Shue version ) .Maybe the amazon.xxx store would be better ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do a search for adult movies on amazon and you get Adventures in Baby Sitting (Elizabeth Shue version) .Maybe the amazon.xxx store would be better ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464402</id>
	<title>Re:Exactly backwards</title>
	<author>wisty</author>
	<datestamp>1268500440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People who want a "kid-safe" internet could insist in embedded ratings. Some HTML tag with "xxx, violence" or whatever else they want to put in. Easy to block. Easy to implement. And people don't have to worry about domain squatters trying to register slashdot.xxx to shake down established sites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People who want a " kid-safe " internet could insist in embedded ratings .
Some HTML tag with " xxx , violence " or whatever else they want to put in .
Easy to block .
Easy to implement .
And people do n't have to worry about domain squatters trying to register slashdot.xxx to shake down established sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who want a "kid-safe" internet could insist in embedded ratings.
Some HTML tag with "xxx, violence" or whatever else they want to put in.
Easy to block.
Easy to implement.
And people don't have to worry about domain squatters trying to register slashdot.xxx to shake down established sites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31465386</id>
	<title>Re:This Whole Debate Is Lasting Longer Than '4 Hou</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1268509080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's worse than not doing it. It's not doing it, but then lying about making the decision to not do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's worse than not doing it .
It 's not doing it , but then lying about making the decision to not do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's worse than not doing it.
It's not doing it, but then lying about making the decision to not do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464286</id>
	<title>Re:Top level domains wont make for less pron</title>
	<author>Vellmont</author>
	<datestamp>1268499300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>But BANNING domains on that note, would as far as I can see only lead to the downfall of the toplevel domain, as porn providers would stop using it as it's not good business.<br></i><br>Until countries make laws requiring "all websites with adult content in them are required to register under the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx domain".  No big deal you say.  I certainly don't go to sites like that.</p><p>Ever go to Amazon?  Amazon sells adult videos.  They also list a wide variety of sex toys, vibrators, etc that many people object to.  Amazon doesn't sell this directly, but they do sell it through another company that lists on Amazon.  Does that make Amazon belong under<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx?  Should the stuff that some people don't like be moved to a special amazon.xxx?</p><p>Creating the domain is but one step in the process of segregating the internet into various categories.  Once you require everything to be in neat little categories you can start to control access to those categories, track them, etc.  More insidious is creating these dividing lines is an attempt to make adult products which are already mainstream and have been for at least 40 years if not more into something not mainstream.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But BANNING domains on that note , would as far as I can see only lead to the downfall of the toplevel domain , as porn providers would stop using it as it 's not good business.Until countries make laws requiring " all websites with adult content in them are required to register under the .xxx domain " .
No big deal you say .
I certainly do n't go to sites like that.Ever go to Amazon ?
Amazon sells adult videos .
They also list a wide variety of sex toys , vibrators , etc that many people object to .
Amazon does n't sell this directly , but they do sell it through another company that lists on Amazon .
Does that make Amazon belong under .xxx ?
Should the stuff that some people do n't like be moved to a special amazon.xxx ? Creating the domain is but one step in the process of segregating the internet into various categories .
Once you require everything to be in neat little categories you can start to control access to those categories , track them , etc .
More insidious is creating these dividing lines is an attempt to make adult products which are already mainstream and have been for at least 40 years if not more into something not mainstream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But BANNING domains on that note, would as far as I can see only lead to the downfall of the toplevel domain, as porn providers would stop using it as it's not good business.Until countries make laws requiring "all websites with adult content in them are required to register under the .xxx domain".
No big deal you say.
I certainly don't go to sites like that.Ever go to Amazon?
Amazon sells adult videos.
They also list a wide variety of sex toys, vibrators, etc that many people object to.
Amazon doesn't sell this directly, but they do sell it through another company that lists on Amazon.
Does that make Amazon belong under .xxx?
Should the stuff that some people don't like be moved to a special amazon.xxx?Creating the domain is but one step in the process of segregating the internet into various categories.
Once you require everything to be in neat little categories you can start to control access to those categories, track them, etc.
More insidious is creating these dividing lines is an attempt to make adult products which are already mainstream and have been for at least 40 years if not more into something not mainstream.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464302</id>
	<title>Re:This Whole Debate Is Lasting Longer Than '4 Hou</title>
	<author>DMiax</author>
	<datestamp>1268499420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Shit or get off the pot, guys. Either way a lot of people won't be happy.</p></div><p>You got some weird fetish, man... May I suggest a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.crp domain for that?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Shit or get off the pot , guys .
Either way a lot of people wo n't be happy.You got some weird fetish , man... May I suggest a .crp domain for that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shit or get off the pot, guys.
Either way a lot of people won't be happy.You got some weird fetish, man... May I suggest a .crp domain for that?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464102</id>
	<title>This Whole Debate Is Lasting Longer Than '4 Hours'</title>
	<author>WrongSizeGlass</author>
	<datestamp>1268497920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Enough already. Clearly they are afraid to make a decision which is in and of itself a decision. If I keep putting off <i>deciding</i> to do something then I am in fact <i>not doing it</i> - only under the guise of indecision, procrastination or requiring further consideration. Shit or get off the pot, guys. Either way a lot of people won't be happy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Enough already .
Clearly they are afraid to make a decision which is in and of itself a decision .
If I keep putting off deciding to do something then I am in fact not doing it - only under the guise of indecision , procrastination or requiring further consideration .
Shit or get off the pot , guys .
Either way a lot of people wo n't be happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Enough already.
Clearly they are afraid to make a decision which is in and of itself a decision.
If I keep putting off deciding to do something then I am in fact not doing it - only under the guise of indecision, procrastination or requiring further consideration.
Shit or get off the pot, guys.
Either way a lot of people won't be happy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31467736</id>
	<title>Re:Unfounded worry</title>
	<author>revboden</author>
	<datestamp>1268482980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The jerk off vs rape logic is myth. Jerking off is about sex drive, rape is about power over another person.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The jerk off vs rape logic is myth .
Jerking off is about sex drive , rape is about power over another person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The jerk off vs rape logic is myth.
Jerking off is about sex drive, rape is about power over another person.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464118</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1335222_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1335222_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1335222_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31465544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1335222_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31467736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1335222_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1335222_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31465456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1335222_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31468176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1335222_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1335222_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31465050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1335222_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31465128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1335222_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1335222_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31470224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1335222_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31466888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1335222_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31465064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1335222_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31468268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1335222_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31465308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1335222_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31465386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1335222_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31468952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1335222_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1335222_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31468110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1335222_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1335222_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31472574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1335222_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31467960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1335222_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31465542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1335222_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31465376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1335222_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31466558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1335222.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464286
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31465544
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31470224
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31468268
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31465542
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31468952
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1335222.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464372
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31468110
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1335222.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31468382
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1335222.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31466558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1335222.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464624
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1335222.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464168
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1335222.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31467960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31465386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31466888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31465456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31465308
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1335222.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1335222.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464360
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464580
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31465064
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31465376
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464402
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31468176
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464510
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31465128
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1335222.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464132
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1335222.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31465050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464144
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464306
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1335222.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31465674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1335222.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464304
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1335222.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31467736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464798
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31472574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1335222.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1335222.31464114
</commentlist>
</conversation>
