<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_18_1735207</id>
	<title>Court Says Parents Can Block PA "Sexting" Prosecutions</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1268935320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:mikesd1@veriz\%5B\%5Dnet\%5B'on.'ingap\%5D" rel="nofollow">mikesd81</a> writes <i>"In the first federal appeals court opinion dealing with 'sexting,' a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled Wednesday that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/education/18sext.html?src=twt&amp;twt=nytimestech">parents could block the prosecution of their children on child pornography charges</a> for appearing in photographs found on some classmates' cellphones.  <a href="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/092144p.pdf">Miller vs. Mitchell</a> (PDF) began in 2008 when school officials in Tunkhannock, Pa., discovered seminude and nude photographs of some female students on other student's phones. George Skumanick Jr., the DA at the time, said the students and their parents could be prosecuted if they did not participate in an after-school 'education program.'
The unanimous ruling of the judges, Thomas L. Ambro, Michael A. Chagares and Walter K. Stapleton, criticized the district attorney's reliance on the girls' presence in the photographs as a basis for the potential charges. 'Appearing in a photograph provides no evidence as to whether that person possessed or transmitted the photo,' said the opinion, by Judge Ambro."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>mikesd81 writes " In the first federal appeals court opinion dealing with 'sexting, ' a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled Wednesday that parents could block the prosecution of their children on child pornography charges for appearing in photographs found on some classmates ' cellphones .
Miller vs. Mitchell ( PDF ) began in 2008 when school officials in Tunkhannock , Pa. , discovered seminude and nude photographs of some female students on other student 's phones .
George Skumanick Jr. , the DA at the time , said the students and their parents could be prosecuted if they did not participate in an after-school 'education program .
' The unanimous ruling of the judges , Thomas L. Ambro , Michael A. Chagares and Walter K. Stapleton , criticized the district attorney 's reliance on the girls ' presence in the photographs as a basis for the potential charges .
'Appearing in a photograph provides no evidence as to whether that person possessed or transmitted the photo, ' said the opinion , by Judge Ambro .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mikesd81 writes "In the first federal appeals court opinion dealing with 'sexting,' a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled Wednesday that parents could block the prosecution of their children on child pornography charges for appearing in photographs found on some classmates' cellphones.
Miller vs. Mitchell (PDF) began in 2008 when school officials in Tunkhannock, Pa., discovered seminude and nude photographs of some female students on other student's phones.
George Skumanick Jr., the DA at the time, said the students and their parents could be prosecuted if they did not participate in an after-school 'education program.
'
The unanimous ruling of the judges, Thomas L. Ambro, Michael A. Chagares and Walter K. Stapleton, criticized the district attorney's reliance on the girls' presence in the photographs as a basis for the potential charges.
'Appearing in a photograph provides no evidence as to whether that person possessed or transmitted the photo,' said the opinion, by Judge Ambro.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31527552</id>
	<title>Re:No warrant == stolen</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1268945880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even better, doesn't that mean that all school staff that was, at any point, in possession of the phones, should be charged with possession of child pornography?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even better , does n't that mean that all school staff that was , at any point , in possession of the phones , should be charged with possession of child pornography ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even better, doesn't that mean that all school staff that was, at any point, in possession of the phones, should be charged with possession of child pornography?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526816</id>
	<title>On the face of it, it sounds good</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1268943840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, on it's bald face it sounds horrible.  It only smells worse and worse the deeper you get.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , on it 's bald face it sounds horrible .
It only smells worse and worse the deeper you get .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, on it's bald face it sounds horrible.
It only smells worse and worse the deeper you get.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526170</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268941920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, if you want your daughter to pregnant or start having regular abortions at age 9 or whatever, great. I don't want my daughters to be fucked by any old dude with a penis, requiring her to get HPV vaccines and take hormone pills during the time of her puberty and maturation.</p><p>I also don't want you telling me how to raise my kids any more than you want me telling you how to raise yours.</p><p>And as for "Christian Taliban" when was the last time any "christian" stopped you from raising your kid the way you wanted. HMMM?</p><p>People who talk like you have never raised any kids or had to deal with the crap that results. I can't wait till you have a slutty daughter, who is pregnant at 13, by a 26 year old loser.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , if you want your daughter to pregnant or start having regular abortions at age 9 or whatever , great .
I do n't want my daughters to be fucked by any old dude with a penis , requiring her to get HPV vaccines and take hormone pills during the time of her puberty and maturation.I also do n't want you telling me how to raise my kids any more than you want me telling you how to raise yours.And as for " Christian Taliban " when was the last time any " christian " stopped you from raising your kid the way you wanted .
HMMM ? People who talk like you have never raised any kids or had to deal with the crap that results .
I ca n't wait till you have a slutty daughter , who is pregnant at 13 , by a 26 year old loser .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, if you want your daughter to pregnant or start having regular abortions at age 9 or whatever, great.
I don't want my daughters to be fucked by any old dude with a penis, requiring her to get HPV vaccines and take hormone pills during the time of her puberty and maturation.I also don't want you telling me how to raise my kids any more than you want me telling you how to raise yours.And as for "Christian Taliban" when was the last time any "christian" stopped you from raising your kid the way you wanted.
HMMM?People who talk like you have never raised any kids or had to deal with the crap that results.
I can't wait till you have a slutty daughter, who is pregnant at 13, by a 26 year old loser.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31527874</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Teun</author>
	<datestamp>1268903580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then why is it in super conservative countries like the USofA that you find most teenage pregnancies?<br>
And even within the US you can see this trend towards the more conservative states.<p>
When kids are raised in an atmosphere that respects sexuality as part of our life instead of vilifying it they will be so much more ready when the time comes.</p><p>
<a href="http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea\_tee\_pre\_percap-health-teenage-pregnancy-per-capita" title="nationmaster.com">http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea\_tee\_pre\_percap-health-teenage-pregnancy-per-capita</a> [nationmaster.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then why is it in super conservative countries like the USofA that you find most teenage pregnancies ?
And even within the US you can see this trend towards the more conservative states .
When kids are raised in an atmosphere that respects sexuality as part of our life instead of vilifying it they will be so much more ready when the time comes .
http : //www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea \ _tee \ _pre \ _percap-health-teenage-pregnancy-per-capita [ nationmaster.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then why is it in super conservative countries like the USofA that you find most teenage pregnancies?
And even within the US you can see this trend towards the more conservative states.
When kids are raised in an atmosphere that respects sexuality as part of our life instead of vilifying it they will be so much more ready when the time comes.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea\_tee\_pre\_percap-health-teenage-pregnancy-per-capita [nationmaster.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31547670</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a second....</title>
	<author>Alsee</author>
	<datestamp>1269025380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Tell them that they ought to look up the weird uncle first.</i></p><p>Actually they should look at the father first, the weird uncle second, the normal uncle third, and after that move on to the priest and the mother.</p><p>And just to vent another beef, I really hate the way reporters and politicians going wacko demonizing the internet. Aside from the fact that almost all abuse is either within the family or family-trusted links such as priests, there is another communication system that pre-dates the internet and which has been used by vastly larger numbers of pedophiles to communicate with children in their homes. That communication network is, of course, the telephone. Almost all "anti-pedo" internet laws (proposed laws or actual laws) should by all logic and by any rational standard, equally apply to telephones. Of course such laws would only draw raging public ridicule if they were proposed in relation to telephones.</p><p>-</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell them that they ought to look up the weird uncle first.Actually they should look at the father first , the weird uncle second , the normal uncle third , and after that move on to the priest and the mother.And just to vent another beef , I really hate the way reporters and politicians going wacko demonizing the internet .
Aside from the fact that almost all abuse is either within the family or family-trusted links such as priests , there is another communication system that pre-dates the internet and which has been used by vastly larger numbers of pedophiles to communicate with children in their homes .
That communication network is , of course , the telephone .
Almost all " anti-pedo " internet laws ( proposed laws or actual laws ) should by all logic and by any rational standard , equally apply to telephones .
Of course such laws would only draw raging public ridicule if they were proposed in relation to telephones.-</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell them that they ought to look up the weird uncle first.Actually they should look at the father first, the weird uncle second, the normal uncle third, and after that move on to the priest and the mother.And just to vent another beef, I really hate the way reporters and politicians going wacko demonizing the internet.
Aside from the fact that almost all abuse is either within the family or family-trusted links such as priests, there is another communication system that pre-dates the internet and which has been used by vastly larger numbers of pedophiles to communicate with children in their homes.
That communication network is, of course, the telephone.
Almost all "anti-pedo" internet laws (proposed laws or actual laws) should by all logic and by any rational standard, equally apply to telephones.
Of course such laws would only draw raging public ridicule if they were proposed in relation to telephones.-</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31527256</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid question time</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1268945040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It IS. But apparently everyone buys into those &ldquo;officials&rdquo;&rsquo; delusional reality, and therefore nobody sues. And when nobody sues, nobody is prosecuted.</p><p>It&rsquo;s the religious schizophrenia abloom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It IS .
But apparently everyone buys into those    officials       delusional reality , and therefore nobody sues .
And when nobody sues , nobody is prosecuted.It    s the religious schizophrenia abloom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It IS.
But apparently everyone buys into those “officials”’ delusional reality, and therefore nobody sues.
And when nobody sues, nobody is prosecuted.It’s the religious schizophrenia abloom.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31527092</id>
	<title>I Think the D.A. is right and shouldn't back down.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268944620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I salute this D.A. because he is doing what people don't want to hear or see done but hey its all these moms that made these rules. All these holier than thou only my kids and not your kids count attitude that got us in this mess. Its all the right wingers. They thought put all the men in prison and all the skanks wont have anyone to knock them up hence lower teen pregnancy.</p><p>I blame nancy grace, chris hansen and all of the fear mongers that told you that if you don't have gps and websites and know 183 random faces from a web page you are putting your kids in danger.</p><p>Its funny how we wrote these laws, and not its biting our kids in the ass. I say let em fry. Cook em all for child pornography because now in this country there are countless cases like this of teenagers having sex and going to prison. A D.A. has to prosecute by whats illegal. What these kids are doing is illegal by the laws we have passed. Even though its so ridiculous and far fetched that its common sense not to prosecute the law doesn't go by common sense.</p><p>Maybe once these kids each get a year in jail and can't go to college or work a decent job for the rest of their lives people will look at these laws.</p><p>For god sakes look at jessica lundsford.. then look at mark lundsford. Then look at joshua lundsford. Yeah it was JOsh who molested a 14 year old girl but didn't get slapped with his daddys laws. He avoided megans law but not for long.</p><p>Thats what happens when you write these feel good do nothing laws.</p><p>Tear down megans law!! Tear down GPS Monitoring!!! Tear it all down!!!</p><p>btw all these laws.. written by 2 of the biggest sex addicts (john walsh) and pedophiles (Mark Foley)</p><p>This is nazi germany, 1984, Pol Pots eutopia. THis is the end of our country and our freedom as we know it.</p><p>some reading material</p><p>http://johnwalshournewgod.blogspot.com/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I salute this D.A .
because he is doing what people do n't want to hear or see done but hey its all these moms that made these rules .
All these holier than thou only my kids and not your kids count attitude that got us in this mess .
Its all the right wingers .
They thought put all the men in prison and all the skanks wont have anyone to knock them up hence lower teen pregnancy.I blame nancy grace , chris hansen and all of the fear mongers that told you that if you do n't have gps and websites and know 183 random faces from a web page you are putting your kids in danger.Its funny how we wrote these laws , and not its biting our kids in the ass .
I say let em fry .
Cook em all for child pornography because now in this country there are countless cases like this of teenagers having sex and going to prison .
A D.A .
has to prosecute by whats illegal .
What these kids are doing is illegal by the laws we have passed .
Even though its so ridiculous and far fetched that its common sense not to prosecute the law does n't go by common sense.Maybe once these kids each get a year in jail and ca n't go to college or work a decent job for the rest of their lives people will look at these laws.For god sakes look at jessica lundsford.. then look at mark lundsford .
Then look at joshua lundsford .
Yeah it was JOsh who molested a 14 year old girl but did n't get slapped with his daddys laws .
He avoided megans law but not for long.Thats what happens when you write these feel good do nothing laws.Tear down megans law ! !
Tear down GPS Monitoring ! ! !
Tear it all down ! !
! btw all these laws.. written by 2 of the biggest sex addicts ( john walsh ) and pedophiles ( Mark Foley ) This is nazi germany , 1984 , Pol Pots eutopia .
THis is the end of our country and our freedom as we know it.some reading materialhttp : //johnwalshournewgod.blogspot.com/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I salute this D.A.
because he is doing what people don't want to hear or see done but hey its all these moms that made these rules.
All these holier than thou only my kids and not your kids count attitude that got us in this mess.
Its all the right wingers.
They thought put all the men in prison and all the skanks wont have anyone to knock them up hence lower teen pregnancy.I blame nancy grace, chris hansen and all of the fear mongers that told you that if you don't have gps and websites and know 183 random faces from a web page you are putting your kids in danger.Its funny how we wrote these laws, and not its biting our kids in the ass.
I say let em fry.
Cook em all for child pornography because now in this country there are countless cases like this of teenagers having sex and going to prison.
A D.A.
has to prosecute by whats illegal.
What these kids are doing is illegal by the laws we have passed.
Even though its so ridiculous and far fetched that its common sense not to prosecute the law doesn't go by common sense.Maybe once these kids each get a year in jail and can't go to college or work a decent job for the rest of their lives people will look at these laws.For god sakes look at jessica lundsford.. then look at mark lundsford.
Then look at joshua lundsford.
Yeah it was JOsh who molested a 14 year old girl but didn't get slapped with his daddys laws.
He avoided megans law but not for long.Thats what happens when you write these feel good do nothing laws.Tear down megans law!!
Tear down GPS Monitoring!!!
Tear it all down!!
!btw all these laws.. written by 2 of the biggest sex addicts (john walsh) and pedophiles (Mark Foley)This is nazi germany, 1984, Pol Pots eutopia.
THis is the end of our country and our freedom as we know it.some reading materialhttp://johnwalshournewgod.blogspot.com/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31530712</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>John Saffran</author>
	<datestamp>1268915460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aren't we on slashdot? The place where no-one's supposed to have sex<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. like ever?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't we on slashdot ?
The place where no-one 's supposed to have sex .. like ever ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't we on slashdot?
The place where no-one's supposed to have sex .. like ever?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31530268</id>
	<title>Re:Voluntary?</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1268912820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Except in OrwellWorld(TM), "obey or be prosecuted" is not "voluntary".</i></p><p>The US Government claims that filing taxes is voluntary under the same argument.  You don't have to file taxes, you can chose to go to jail or have your babies shot instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except in OrwellWorld ( TM ) , " obey or be prosecuted " is not " voluntary " .The US Government claims that filing taxes is voluntary under the same argument .
You do n't have to file taxes , you can chose to go to jail or have your babies shot instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except in OrwellWorld(TM), "obey or be prosecuted" is not "voluntary".The US Government claims that filing taxes is voluntary under the same argument.
You don't have to file taxes, you can chose to go to jail or have your babies shot instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526942</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268944140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I STILL havent had sex... your the insensitive clod</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I STILL havent had sex... your the insensitive clod</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I STILL havent had sex... your the insensitive clod</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525500</id>
	<title>I simply don't understand</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268939580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I simply don't understand how prosecuting teenagers who take nude pictures of other nude teenagers, or appear in such pictures, helps the human sociaty in ANY way at all. Nobody is harmed by this. Aren't there useful things to prosecute instead, such as, people who cause aggression, vandalize cars, etc...?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I simply do n't understand how prosecuting teenagers who take nude pictures of other nude teenagers , or appear in such pictures , helps the human sociaty in ANY way at all .
Nobody is harmed by this .
Are n't there useful things to prosecute instead , such as , people who cause aggression , vandalize cars , etc... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I simply don't understand how prosecuting teenagers who take nude pictures of other nude teenagers, or appear in such pictures, helps the human sociaty in ANY way at all.
Nobody is harmed by this.
Aren't there useful things to prosecute instead, such as, people who cause aggression, vandalize cars, etc...?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31529462</id>
	<title>Education Program?</title>
	<author>Nefarious Wheel</author>
	<datestamp>1268909040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are these "education programs" anything like the ones in China?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are these " education programs " anything like the ones in China ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are these "education programs" anything like the ones in China?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525582</id>
	<title>It's inexplicable.</title>
	<author>Securityemo</author>
	<datestamp>1268940060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why do people tie themselves and others down with such rough-hewn principles? Of course, you need principles, as the human mind can't analyze every detail of every situation and thing all the time, but is that really the limits of their psyches? People around me, normal seemingly functional people that aren't considered mentally challenged by society in any way, burden themselves with crude approximations, in situations where i just improvise a detailed solution on a whim, without any effort whatsoever. It feels like hubris to think that it's a matter of "intelligence", maybe some people just have a psychological need to think and live like that? Reflexively, I find out that many many people think that I'm some sort of ultra-principled saint/boring rules-submissive stiff... when in fact, I'm quite the opposite. So do they then feel they would be crazed hellraisers, or at least incapable of functioning, if they approached problems like I do?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do people tie themselves and others down with such rough-hewn principles ?
Of course , you need principles , as the human mind ca n't analyze every detail of every situation and thing all the time , but is that really the limits of their psyches ?
People around me , normal seemingly functional people that are n't considered mentally challenged by society in any way , burden themselves with crude approximations , in situations where i just improvise a detailed solution on a whim , without any effort whatsoever .
It feels like hubris to think that it 's a matter of " intelligence " , maybe some people just have a psychological need to think and live like that ?
Reflexively , I find out that many many people think that I 'm some sort of ultra-principled saint/boring rules-submissive stiff... when in fact , I 'm quite the opposite .
So do they then feel they would be crazed hellraisers , or at least incapable of functioning , if they approached problems like I do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do people tie themselves and others down with such rough-hewn principles?
Of course, you need principles, as the human mind can't analyze every detail of every situation and thing all the time, but is that really the limits of their psyches?
People around me, normal seemingly functional people that aren't considered mentally challenged by society in any way, burden themselves with crude approximations, in situations where i just improvise a detailed solution on a whim, without any effort whatsoever.
It feels like hubris to think that it's a matter of "intelligence", maybe some people just have a psychological need to think and live like that?
Reflexively, I find out that many many people think that I'm some sort of ultra-principled saint/boring rules-submissive stiff... when in fact, I'm quite the opposite.
So do they then feel they would be crazed hellraisers, or at least incapable of functioning, if they approached problems like I do?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525504</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268939640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And that's why we should forbid teens to have sex. It's a bit like circumcision, most of the time the only real reason to do it is to take revenge on your children.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And that 's why we should forbid teens to have sex .
It 's a bit like circumcision , most of the time the only real reason to do it is to take revenge on your children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that's why we should forbid teens to have sex.
It's a bit like circumcision, most of the time the only real reason to do it is to take revenge on your children.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31534446</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269000300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*scratches head* So why would your daughter want to fuck any old dude with a penis? And/or become pregnant?<br>The first thing only happens if sex is so "interesting" (or forbidden) that you would fuck anyone to experience it, the second if you did not inform your child how to prevent pregnancy.<br>BTW, you do not \_need\_ to get the HPV vaccination (you did tell your daughter to never, ever fuck anyone without a condom unless they're in a very long term relationship, right?).<br>The pill can be (not, \_is\_!) a bit of a problem, granted. It is difficult to find the right dosage/combination.<br>However, I think your kid would be better off with a bit of hormonal imbalance instead of a life without sex or without a decent education about sex.</p><p>For what it's worth, my personal story: I grew up in Germany, and there was plenty of sex-ed around. I knew about sex when I was... well, 9? That did not mean I engaged in it until I was roughly 20 or so. Why?<br>Sure, sex feels great. With proper care, it is safe and there won't be any health or other consequences. That is what my parents told me.</p><p>However, casual sex was, and is just not worth the hassle imO. There is all that stupid "flirting" and stuff going on (leading to strange excesses like the pick-up scene). You have to manage expectations, take the aforementioned proper care, and whatnot.<br>For what? A couple of minutes of pleasure two or three times a week? No, thanks.</p><p>Therefore, I just waited until my first long-term relationship, which turned out just fine (well, sex-wise. The relationship has ended a couple years back).</p><p>Which, btw is the same what one of my sisters did (except that she married the guy). The other one's different (she enjoys sex and the associated social games more), but not in a "bad" way either.</p><p>Yes, I can also talk with my sisters (and their husbands now) about sex and have done so from the very beginning. It's just a topic as everything else.</p><p>To bring my ramblings to an end: There is no big mystery behind sex or sex education.<br>Telling your kids about how sex works, what precautions they need will clarify the artificial mystery that is (mostly) created by advertising and the American prudes out, and they will make their own decisions about sex.<br>And grow up just fine<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* scratches head * So why would your daughter want to fuck any old dude with a penis ?
And/or become pregnant ? The first thing only happens if sex is so " interesting " ( or forbidden ) that you would fuck anyone to experience it , the second if you did not inform your child how to prevent pregnancy.BTW , you do not \ _need \ _ to get the HPV vaccination ( you did tell your daughter to never , ever fuck anyone without a condom unless they 're in a very long term relationship , right ?
) .The pill can be ( not , \ _is \ _ !
) a bit of a problem , granted .
It is difficult to find the right dosage/combination.However , I think your kid would be better off with a bit of hormonal imbalance instead of a life without sex or without a decent education about sex.For what it 's worth , my personal story : I grew up in Germany , and there was plenty of sex-ed around .
I knew about sex when I was... well , 9 ?
That did not mean I engaged in it until I was roughly 20 or so .
Why ? Sure , sex feels great .
With proper care , it is safe and there wo n't be any health or other consequences .
That is what my parents told me.However , casual sex was , and is just not worth the hassle imO .
There is all that stupid " flirting " and stuff going on ( leading to strange excesses like the pick-up scene ) .
You have to manage expectations , take the aforementioned proper care , and whatnot.For what ?
A couple of minutes of pleasure two or three times a week ?
No , thanks.Therefore , I just waited until my first long-term relationship , which turned out just fine ( well , sex-wise .
The relationship has ended a couple years back ) .Which , btw is the same what one of my sisters did ( except that she married the guy ) .
The other one 's different ( she enjoys sex and the associated social games more ) , but not in a " bad " way either.Yes , I can also talk with my sisters ( and their husbands now ) about sex and have done so from the very beginning .
It 's just a topic as everything else.To bring my ramblings to an end : There is no big mystery behind sex or sex education.Telling your kids about how sex works , what precautions they need will clarify the artificial mystery that is ( mostly ) created by advertising and the American prudes out , and they will make their own decisions about sex.And grow up just fine ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*scratches head* So why would your daughter want to fuck any old dude with a penis?
And/or become pregnant?The first thing only happens if sex is so "interesting" (or forbidden) that you would fuck anyone to experience it, the second if you did not inform your child how to prevent pregnancy.BTW, you do not \_need\_ to get the HPV vaccination (you did tell your daughter to never, ever fuck anyone without a condom unless they're in a very long term relationship, right?
).The pill can be (not, \_is\_!
) a bit of a problem, granted.
It is difficult to find the right dosage/combination.However, I think your kid would be better off with a bit of hormonal imbalance instead of a life without sex or without a decent education about sex.For what it's worth, my personal story: I grew up in Germany, and there was plenty of sex-ed around.
I knew about sex when I was... well, 9?
That did not mean I engaged in it until I was roughly 20 or so.
Why?Sure, sex feels great.
With proper care, it is safe and there won't be any health or other consequences.
That is what my parents told me.However, casual sex was, and is just not worth the hassle imO.
There is all that stupid "flirting" and stuff going on (leading to strange excesses like the pick-up scene).
You have to manage expectations, take the aforementioned proper care, and whatnot.For what?
A couple of minutes of pleasure two or three times a week?
No, thanks.Therefore, I just waited until my first long-term relationship, which turned out just fine (well, sex-wise.
The relationship has ended a couple years back).Which, btw is the same what one of my sisters did (except that she married the guy).
The other one's different (she enjoys sex and the associated social games more), but not in a "bad" way either.Yes, I can also talk with my sisters (and their husbands now) about sex and have done so from the very beginning.
It's just a topic as everything else.To bring my ramblings to an end: There is no big mystery behind sex or sex education.Telling your kids about how sex works, what precautions they need will clarify the artificial mystery that is (mostly) created by advertising and the American prudes out, and they will make their own decisions about sex.And grow up just fine ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31529702</id>
	<title>Seriously</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268910060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is a naked devleoped 16-17 year old girl considered child porn? When I think of child porn I think of under 10.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is a naked devleoped 16-17 year old girl considered child porn ?
When I think of child porn I think of under 10 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is a naked devleoped 16-17 year old girl considered child porn?
When I think of child porn I think of under 10.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526790</id>
	<title>Voluntary?</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1268943780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The District Attorney needs to go to vocabulary re-education class:<blockquote><div><p>"Participation in the program is voluntary," the letter said. "Please note, however, charges will be filed against those that do not participate or those that do not successfully complete the program."</p></div></blockquote><p>

Except in OrwellWorld(TM), "obey or be prosecuted" is not "voluntary".</p><blockquote><div><p>"Appearing in a photograph provides no evidence as to whether that person possessed or transmitted the photo," said the opinion, by Judge Ambro.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Not noted in the article was that Judge Ambro specifically credited Captain Obvious, Esq. for his amicus brief on this subject.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The District Attorney needs to go to vocabulary re-education class : " Participation in the program is voluntary , " the letter said .
" Please note , however , charges will be filed against those that do not participate or those that do not successfully complete the program .
" Except in OrwellWorld ( TM ) , " obey or be prosecuted " is not " voluntary " .
" Appearing in a photograph provides no evidence as to whether that person possessed or transmitted the photo , " said the opinion , by Judge Ambro .
Not noted in the article was that Judge Ambro specifically credited Captain Obvious , Esq .
for his amicus brief on this subject .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The District Attorney needs to go to vocabulary re-education class:"Participation in the program is voluntary," the letter said.
"Please note, however, charges will be filed against those that do not participate or those that do not successfully complete the program.
"

Except in OrwellWorld(TM), "obey or be prosecuted" is not "voluntary".
"Appearing in a photograph provides no evidence as to whether that person possessed or transmitted the photo," said the opinion, by Judge Ambro.
Not noted in the article was that Judge Ambro specifically credited Captain Obvious, Esq.
for his amicus brief on this subject.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525572</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1268940000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent up!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525986</id>
	<title>And yet, they tell us to be fruitful and multiply.</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1268941440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's Jewish though Christians say it too.  However they add you can only multiply when granted a church license called marriage.  Muslims along with some Christian sects also allow males to have more than one spouse, but females can only have one.  Which is called <a href="http://www.onelook.com/?w=polygyny&amp;ls=a" title="onelook.com">polygyny</a> [onelook.com] not <a href="http://www.onelook.com/?w=polygamy&amp;ls=a" title="onelook.com">polygamy</a> [onelook.com].  Now if they allowed females to have more than one spouse as well as males then it would be polygamy.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's Jewish though Christians say it too .
However they add you can only multiply when granted a church license called marriage .
Muslims along with some Christian sects also allow males to have more than one spouse , but females can only have one .
Which is called polygyny [ onelook.com ] not polygamy [ onelook.com ] .
Now if they allowed females to have more than one spouse as well as males then it would be polygamy .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's Jewish though Christians say it too.
However they add you can only multiply when granted a church license called marriage.
Muslims along with some Christian sects also allow males to have more than one spouse, but females can only have one.
Which is called polygyny [onelook.com] not polygamy [onelook.com].
Now if they allowed females to have more than one spouse as well as males then it would be polygamy.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525670</id>
	<title>Waitaminute</title>
	<author>Khan</author>
	<datestamp>1268940360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So this sexting thing is labeled as child porn yet this isn't: <a href="http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&amp;sql=10:0ifyxqq5ld6e" title="allmusic.com">http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&amp;sql=10:0ifyxqq5ld6e</a> [allmusic.com]</p><p>C'mon people! I continue to be amazed at our country's puritanical stance on sex overall. Yes, child porn and abuse is a VERY bad thing and should be punished by the extreme measures of the law (yes Catholic Church...I'm talking to you) but this kind of stupidity is not acceptable. And as a parent of three, you better believe that I will be on them about sending ANY kind of picture least of all a nude one to their friends. Trust me, I'm not the one that's going to be embarrassed in public about it. If they need to learn the hard way, so be it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So this sexting thing is labeled as child porn yet this is n't : http : //www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll ? p = amg&amp;sql = 10 : 0ifyxqq5ld6e [ allmusic.com ] C'mon people !
I continue to be amazed at our country 's puritanical stance on sex overall .
Yes , child porn and abuse is a VERY bad thing and should be punished by the extreme measures of the law ( yes Catholic Church...I 'm talking to you ) but this kind of stupidity is not acceptable .
And as a parent of three , you better believe that I will be on them about sending ANY kind of picture least of all a nude one to their friends .
Trust me , I 'm not the one that 's going to be embarrassed in public about it .
If they need to learn the hard way , so be it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So this sexting thing is labeled as child porn yet this isn't: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&amp;sql=10:0ifyxqq5ld6e [allmusic.com]C'mon people!
I continue to be amazed at our country's puritanical stance on sex overall.
Yes, child porn and abuse is a VERY bad thing and should be punished by the extreme measures of the law (yes Catholic Church...I'm talking to you) but this kind of stupidity is not acceptable.
And as a parent of three, you better believe that I will be on them about sending ANY kind of picture least of all a nude one to their friends.
Trust me, I'm not the one that's going to be embarrassed in public about it.
If they need to learn the hard way, so be it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31528268</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>HungryHobo</author>
	<datestamp>1268904720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This works until the age of 12.</p><p>At which point "something else interesting to do" has to involve <b>both</b> explosions and high voltage and will only remain interesting enough for about 15 minutes at which point you have to find something else more interesting.</p><p>Do you have no memory of being a teenager at all???<br>Sex becomes a central obsession and while both those pieces of advice are good healthy ideas they will certainly not keep any teenager from wanting to have sex.</p><p>They will engage in it regardless of <b>anything</b> you tell them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This works until the age of 12.At which point " something else interesting to do " has to involve both explosions and high voltage and will only remain interesting enough for about 15 minutes at which point you have to find something else more interesting.Do you have no memory of being a teenager at all ? ?
? Sex becomes a central obsession and while both those pieces of advice are good healthy ideas they will certainly not keep any teenager from wanting to have sex.They will engage in it regardless of anything you tell them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This works until the age of 12.At which point "something else interesting to do" has to involve both explosions and high voltage and will only remain interesting enough for about 15 minutes at which point you have to find something else more interesting.Do you have no memory of being a teenager at all??
?Sex becomes a central obsession and while both those pieces of advice are good healthy ideas they will certainly not keep any teenager from wanting to have sex.They will engage in it regardless of anything you tell them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526996</id>
	<title>Legalize Child Porn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268944320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm serious.  I'm not trolling.</p><p>We absolutely should be severely punishing anyone that harms children.  Child porn provides evidence of that harm.  Child porn is not harm in and of itself.</p><p>Eliminating child porn would not help children.  In fact, it would hurt children.  Just ask the FBI.  The FBI has what is most likely by far the world's largest collection of child porn.  Why?  Because they use it to find people who harm children.</p><p>If child porn were legalized, this would mean that teens that take erotic pictures of themselves would no longer be prosecuted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm serious .
I 'm not trolling.We absolutely should be severely punishing anyone that harms children .
Child porn provides evidence of that harm .
Child porn is not harm in and of itself.Eliminating child porn would not help children .
In fact , it would hurt children .
Just ask the FBI .
The FBI has what is most likely by far the world 's largest collection of child porn .
Why ? Because they use it to find people who harm children.If child porn were legalized , this would mean that teens that take erotic pictures of themselves would no longer be prosecuted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm serious.
I'm not trolling.We absolutely should be severely punishing anyone that harms children.
Child porn provides evidence of that harm.
Child porn is not harm in and of itself.Eliminating child porn would not help children.
In fact, it would hurt children.
Just ask the FBI.
The FBI has what is most likely by far the world's largest collection of child porn.
Why?  Because they use it to find people who harm children.If child porn were legalized, this would mean that teens that take erotic pictures of themselves would no longer be prosecuted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525414</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268939280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hell, we even had sex <i>like every other teenager does</i>.</p></div><p>I never had sex as a teen, you insensitive clod!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hell , we even had sex like every other teenager does.I never had sex as a teen , you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hell, we even had sex like every other teenager does.I never had sex as a teen, you insensitive clod!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525966</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268941380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And this isn't a random artifact of the belief systems. At least if you look at it from the perspective of developmental psychology.<br>Kids go through a number of stages when they grow up. During the later part of pre-puberty childhood, children are inherently authoritarian in their mindset, which is to say, when an authority figure tells them something about the world, they tend to believe it.<br>If you question them on such information they will refer back to the authority. I.e "Dad said that..", "Teacher said that...".<br>The stage during which the kids learn to think independently (if not necessarily rationally) happens to coincide and seems to somehow be connected to sexual maturation.</p><p>If you successfully suppress the development of an independent "sexual identity" or what you might want to call it, you will also to some degree suppress the development of independent thinking.</p><p>So, a religion or tradition that involves hampering the psycho sexual development of children will have a sort of evolutionary advantage to other belief systems in so far that children who get indoctrinated pre puberty will tend to stay indoctrinated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And this is n't a random artifact of the belief systems .
At least if you look at it from the perspective of developmental psychology.Kids go through a number of stages when they grow up .
During the later part of pre-puberty childhood , children are inherently authoritarian in their mindset , which is to say , when an authority figure tells them something about the world , they tend to believe it.If you question them on such information they will refer back to the authority .
I.e " Dad said that.. " , " Teacher said that... " .The stage during which the kids learn to think independently ( if not necessarily rationally ) happens to coincide and seems to somehow be connected to sexual maturation.If you successfully suppress the development of an independent " sexual identity " or what you might want to call it , you will also to some degree suppress the development of independent thinking.So , a religion or tradition that involves hampering the psycho sexual development of children will have a sort of evolutionary advantage to other belief systems in so far that children who get indoctrinated pre puberty will tend to stay indoctrinated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And this isn't a random artifact of the belief systems.
At least if you look at it from the perspective of developmental psychology.Kids go through a number of stages when they grow up.
During the later part of pre-puberty childhood, children are inherently authoritarian in their mindset, which is to say, when an authority figure tells them something about the world, they tend to believe it.If you question them on such information they will refer back to the authority.
I.e "Dad said that..", "Teacher said that...".The stage during which the kids learn to think independently (if not necessarily rationally) happens to coincide and seems to somehow be connected to sexual maturation.If you successfully suppress the development of an independent "sexual identity" or what you might want to call it, you will also to some degree suppress the development of independent thinking.So, a religion or tradition that involves hampering the psycho sexual development of children will have a sort of evolutionary advantage to other belief systems in so far that children who get indoctrinated pre puberty will tend to stay indoctrinated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526702</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Sique</author>
	<datestamp>1268943480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone who actually has children and remembers well growing up himself, I tell you: No child will engage in sexual intercourse if there is something else interesting to do. So the best way to keep your child away from teenage pregnancy is<br>1) support your child if it starts to show interest in some hobby, get it interested, keep it occupied with something it has fun doing.<br>2) don't make the impression sex would be something overly interesting, by being completely normal and honest about it. Children notice if you feel not well talking about something, and if they get the impression you want to hide something that may be fun to do, they will engage in it regardless of anything you tell them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who actually has children and remembers well growing up himself , I tell you : No child will engage in sexual intercourse if there is something else interesting to do .
So the best way to keep your child away from teenage pregnancy is1 ) support your child if it starts to show interest in some hobby , get it interested , keep it occupied with something it has fun doing.2 ) do n't make the impression sex would be something overly interesting , by being completely normal and honest about it .
Children notice if you feel not well talking about something , and if they get the impression you want to hide something that may be fun to do , they will engage in it regardless of anything you tell them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who actually has children and remembers well growing up himself, I tell you: No child will engage in sexual intercourse if there is something else interesting to do.
So the best way to keep your child away from teenage pregnancy is1) support your child if it starts to show interest in some hobby, get it interested, keep it occupied with something it has fun doing.2) don't make the impression sex would be something overly interesting, by being completely normal and honest about it.
Children notice if you feel not well talking about something, and if they get the impression you want to hide something that may be fun to do, they will engage in it regardless of anything you tell them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31536072</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>zildgulf</author>
	<datestamp>1269010020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed, thousands of American Christian Taliban idiots make tons of noise, get on the news, and make it difficult for the rest of the millions and millions of American Christians.  It is very frustrating to see those idiots get all of the press and saying absolutely crazy sound bites.  Christianity reduces to sound bites is not the Christianity most people believe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed , thousands of American Christian Taliban idiots make tons of noise , get on the news , and make it difficult for the rest of the millions and millions of American Christians .
It is very frustrating to see those idiots get all of the press and saying absolutely crazy sound bites .
Christianity reduces to sound bites is not the Christianity most people believe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed, thousands of American Christian Taliban idiots make tons of noise, get on the news, and make it difficult for the rest of the millions and millions of American Christians.
It is very frustrating to see those idiots get all of the press and saying absolutely crazy sound bites.
Christianity reduces to sound bites is not the Christianity most people believe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31528658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526032</id>
	<title>Re:Waitaminute</title>
	<author>pandrijeczko</author>
	<datestamp>1268941560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here we go... next you'll start preaching about how you can here the devil's voice if you play a Judas Priest song backwards...</p><p>My friend, I've had that album nigh on 30 years, it's a great blues rock album &amp; I had completely forgotten any idea about that being an underage semi-nude model on the cover until you mentioned it; in the same way, now you've reminded me of the fact, I really don't feel the urge to go and sexually abuse an underage girl - if nothing else, my wife of 16 years probably wouldn't approve of such behaviour.</p><p>Yep, child porn is evil and hanging is too good for the people that make the stuff - but put into some *CONTEXT*, please! It's not as though anyone's ever suggested tearing down the ceiling of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sistine\_Chapel" title="wikipedia.org">Sistine Chapel</a> [wikipedia.org] just because there's a few naked cherubs on it.</p><p>People like you need to wake up in the morning having done a complete "reboot" on life - start by assuming that the great majority of adult people in this world a normal, boring, law-abiding citizens who are just getting on with their own lives, and know right from wrong without people like you preaching to them...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here we go... next you 'll start preaching about how you can here the devil 's voice if you play a Judas Priest song backwards...My friend , I 've had that album nigh on 30 years , it 's a great blues rock album &amp; I had completely forgotten any idea about that being an underage semi-nude model on the cover until you mentioned it ; in the same way , now you 've reminded me of the fact , I really do n't feel the urge to go and sexually abuse an underage girl - if nothing else , my wife of 16 years probably would n't approve of such behaviour.Yep , child porn is evil and hanging is too good for the people that make the stuff - but put into some * CONTEXT * , please !
It 's not as though anyone 's ever suggested tearing down the ceiling of Sistine Chapel [ wikipedia.org ] just because there 's a few naked cherubs on it.People like you need to wake up in the morning having done a complete " reboot " on life - start by assuming that the great majority of adult people in this world a normal , boring , law-abiding citizens who are just getting on with their own lives , and know right from wrong without people like you preaching to them.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here we go... next you'll start preaching about how you can here the devil's voice if you play a Judas Priest song backwards...My friend, I've had that album nigh on 30 years, it's a great blues rock album &amp; I had completely forgotten any idea about that being an underage semi-nude model on the cover until you mentioned it; in the same way, now you've reminded me of the fact, I really don't feel the urge to go and sexually abuse an underage girl - if nothing else, my wife of 16 years probably wouldn't approve of such behaviour.Yep, child porn is evil and hanging is too good for the people that make the stuff - but put into some *CONTEXT*, please!
It's not as though anyone's ever suggested tearing down the ceiling of Sistine Chapel [wikipedia.org] just because there's a few naked cherubs on it.People like you need to wake up in the morning having done a complete "reboot" on life - start by assuming that the great majority of adult people in this world a normal, boring, law-abiding citizens who are just getting on with their own lives, and know right from wrong without people like you preaching to them...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525746</id>
	<title>Stupid question time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268940600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why isn't it illegal for the school officials to be in possession of nude pictures of underage children?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is n't it illegal for the school officials to be in possession of nude pictures of underage children ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why isn't it illegal for the school officials to be in possession of nude pictures of underage children?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526496</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid question time</title>
	<author>Securityemo</author>
	<datestamp>1268942820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because they are trusted. You have to keep in mind that the reasoning behind all this is that teenage sex is a problem, and that the best solution is just to remove all physical intimacy between the "kids". Nude pictures are a perversion, and if they're on the intertubes, who knows where they'l wind up? In this worldview, good trusted people and pillars of the community would certainly never consciously entertain inappropriate sexual thoughts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they are trusted .
You have to keep in mind that the reasoning behind all this is that teenage sex is a problem , and that the best solution is just to remove all physical intimacy between the " kids " .
Nude pictures are a perversion , and if they 're on the intertubes , who knows where they'l wind up ?
In this worldview , good trusted people and pillars of the community would certainly never consciously entertain inappropriate sexual thoughts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because they are trusted.
You have to keep in mind that the reasoning behind all this is that teenage sex is a problem, and that the best solution is just to remove all physical intimacy between the "kids".
Nude pictures are a perversion, and if they're on the intertubes, who knows where they'l wind up?
In this worldview, good trusted people and pillars of the community would certainly never consciously entertain inappropriate sexual thoughts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525736</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>poetmatt</author>
	<datestamp>1268940540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's not exactly a surprise that the same religious sect has the most teen pregnancies and such, either. However, don't throw judaism in with the christians. The christians are on their own on this one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's not exactly a surprise that the same religious sect has the most teen pregnancies and such , either .
However , do n't throw judaism in with the christians .
The christians are on their own on this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's not exactly a surprise that the same religious sect has the most teen pregnancies and such, either.
However, don't throw judaism in with the christians.
The christians are on their own on this one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31528046</id>
	<title>Re:Aren't we forgetting something?</title>
	<author>hatemonger</author>
	<datestamp>1268904060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Porn seems to be distinguished from naked pictures based solely on community standards. From the still-lingering influence of America's Puritanical origins, the community standards there are rather strict on anything involving sex, nudity, or children.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Porn seems to be distinguished from naked pictures based solely on community standards .
From the still-lingering influence of America 's Puritanical origins , the community standards there are rather strict on anything involving sex , nudity , or children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Porn seems to be distinguished from naked pictures based solely on community standards.
From the still-lingering influence of America's Puritanical origins, the community standards there are rather strict on anything involving sex, nudity, or children.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31527694</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>gnasher719</author>
	<datestamp>1268903040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Maybe so but there are a lot of parents that don't want naked pictures of their perfect child floating around the school and would like to use rule of law to discourage "sexting." It's all about appearances; the parents don't want to look like they raised their kids poorly and the state doesn't want to look like they're soft on crime.</p></div><p>So if your child sends nude pictures of himself or herself around, and you make sure that they go to jail as sex offenders, doesn't that make you look like you raised your kid poorly?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe so but there are a lot of parents that do n't want naked pictures of their perfect child floating around the school and would like to use rule of law to discourage " sexting .
" It 's all about appearances ; the parents do n't want to look like they raised their kids poorly and the state does n't want to look like they 're soft on crime.So if your child sends nude pictures of himself or herself around , and you make sure that they go to jail as sex offenders , does n't that make you look like you raised your kid poorly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Maybe so but there are a lot of parents that don't want naked pictures of their perfect child floating around the school and would like to use rule of law to discourage "sexting.
" It's all about appearances; the parents don't want to look like they raised their kids poorly and the state doesn't want to look like they're soft on crime.So if your child sends nude pictures of himself or herself around, and you make sure that they go to jail as sex offenders, doesn't that make you look like you raised your kid poorly?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31528658</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268906040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please restrict your generalized bigotry.<br> <br>

Grouping every person who ascribes to a belief into a single batch of crazy extremists is just what the Fundamentalist right does.  If your goal is to act more like Glen Beck or for that matter, Joseph McCarthy, Stalin and the like, well then you are right on track.  It is nothing short of blatant hate speech and un-educated bigotry.<br> <br>

Just like the majority of people, the majority of Christians are sane, reasonable people.  Just like the majority of the left are sane reasonable people.  Also note that the majority of the left ARE Christians as well (half of all US Citizens are Christian).<br> <br>

Every time a person stands up and says things like you have just done, it weakens the point of reasonable people.  If you actually care about these issues, please spend some time doing some research.  Then, after some contemplative time, say what your opinion is.  If you really want something to change, also suggest a solution.<br> <br>

If however, your goal is to just spew FUD.  Well then, by all means continue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please restrict your generalized bigotry .
Grouping every person who ascribes to a belief into a single batch of crazy extremists is just what the Fundamentalist right does .
If your goal is to act more like Glen Beck or for that matter , Joseph McCarthy , Stalin and the like , well then you are right on track .
It is nothing short of blatant hate speech and un-educated bigotry .
Just like the majority of people , the majority of Christians are sane , reasonable people .
Just like the majority of the left are sane reasonable people .
Also note that the majority of the left ARE Christians as well ( half of all US Citizens are Christian ) .
Every time a person stands up and says things like you have just done , it weakens the point of reasonable people .
If you actually care about these issues , please spend some time doing some research .
Then , after some contemplative time , say what your opinion is .
If you really want something to change , also suggest a solution .
If however , your goal is to just spew FUD .
Well then , by all means continue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please restrict your generalized bigotry.
Grouping every person who ascribes to a belief into a single batch of crazy extremists is just what the Fundamentalist right does.
If your goal is to act more like Glen Beck or for that matter, Joseph McCarthy, Stalin and the like, well then you are right on track.
It is nothing short of blatant hate speech and un-educated bigotry.
Just like the majority of people, the majority of Christians are sane, reasonable people.
Just like the majority of the left are sane reasonable people.
Also note that the majority of the left ARE Christians as well (half of all US Citizens are Christian).
Every time a person stands up and says things like you have just done, it weakens the point of reasonable people.
If you actually care about these issues, please spend some time doing some research.
Then, after some contemplative time, say what your opinion is.
If you really want something to change, also suggest a solution.
If however, your goal is to just spew FUD.
Well then, by all means continue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31547704</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269025980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Logic Fail.</p><p>"we even had sex like every other teenager"</p><p>we + every other = all (other meaning - other than ourselves)</p><p>we + other = some</p><p>We have a lovely consolation prize for you. Thanks for playing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Logic Fail .
" we even had sex like every other teenager " we + every other = all ( other meaning - other than ourselves ) we + other = someWe have a lovely consolation prize for you .
Thanks for playing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Logic Fail.
"we even had sex like every other teenager"we + every other = all (other meaning - other than ourselves)we + other = someWe have a lovely consolation prize for you.
Thanks for playing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31544396</id>
	<title>It stands to reason...</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1268995800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If minors can be charged with child pornography for taking pictures of themselves, can they also be charged with rape for masturbating? After all, having sex with someone under the age of consent is statutory rape, isn't it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If minors can be charged with child pornography for taking pictures of themselves , can they also be charged with rape for masturbating ?
After all , having sex with someone under the age of consent is statutory rape , is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If minors can be charged with child pornography for taking pictures of themselves, can they also be charged with rape for masturbating?
After all, having sex with someone under the age of consent is statutory rape, isn't it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31530732</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Voyager529</author>
	<datestamp>1268915640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a Christian, and being a virgin by choice (I'm 23 btw, and yes, I've had a girlfriend), the rationale goes something like this: I'm not looking for any legislation pertaining to sexual intercourse*. Actually, I'm rather disappointed as to how many Christians try to legislate morality, when that simply doesn't work, nor do I expect it to. So no, I'm not looking to control and ration sex from the steps of Capitol Hill. If you choose against my belief system, then that's your choice, and comes with both perks and consequences.</p><p>Fire is a great thing in a fireplace. It's great in a backyard BBQ grill. It's great on a candle as a light source for a romantic dinner, and it's downright life saving in the middle of the woods on a cold night. It's not, however, a very good thing in the middle of my living room. It's not all that great in my car when I'm driving, and it's not a very good thing underneath my server rack at work. The concept of fire hasn't changed; it's still an exothermic reaction between heat, oxygen, and a fuel source. What has changed is the CONTEXT in which that chemical reaction takes place, and the context determines whether the fire saves a life, or if it takes one.</p><p>Similarly, I believe that sex was God's idea. It was a pretty good one, as far as I can tell. The problem is that there is a context for it to happen in where it works best, and that's a marriage bed. There are certainly perks for sex outside of a permanent, monogamous context, but there are also consequences to it as well, and the latter can EASILY be lifelong. I wouldn't wish that on myself, and I wouldn't wish that on any of my female friends or on my ex-girlfriend, just so I could say that we had some fun for a little while.</p><p>If this whole God and Christianity thing is as real as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, fine. I will have lived my live believing a complete lie, treating others with respect and dignity, caring for others, donating to charity, paying my taxes, choosing the honest road instead of the easy one...and having the opportunity to lie with my future wife on my wedding night, look into her eyes, and say "I've waited $YEARS for this moment, and you're the only one I'll ever share it with." To me, that moment will be worth every minute of the last 23+however-many years I will spend waiting for her.</p><p>*The exception to this is adultery; so long as marriage is considered a legally binding contract, infidelity is a breach of that contract and should carry legal consequences for dishonoring a legal agreement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a Christian , and being a virgin by choice ( I 'm 23 btw , and yes , I 've had a girlfriend ) , the rationale goes something like this : I 'm not looking for any legislation pertaining to sexual intercourse * .
Actually , I 'm rather disappointed as to how many Christians try to legislate morality , when that simply does n't work , nor do I expect it to .
So no , I 'm not looking to control and ration sex from the steps of Capitol Hill .
If you choose against my belief system , then that 's your choice , and comes with both perks and consequences.Fire is a great thing in a fireplace .
It 's great in a backyard BBQ grill .
It 's great on a candle as a light source for a romantic dinner , and it 's downright life saving in the middle of the woods on a cold night .
It 's not , however , a very good thing in the middle of my living room .
It 's not all that great in my car when I 'm driving , and it 's not a very good thing underneath my server rack at work .
The concept of fire has n't changed ; it 's still an exothermic reaction between heat , oxygen , and a fuel source .
What has changed is the CONTEXT in which that chemical reaction takes place , and the context determines whether the fire saves a life , or if it takes one.Similarly , I believe that sex was God 's idea .
It was a pretty good one , as far as I can tell .
The problem is that there is a context for it to happen in where it works best , and that 's a marriage bed .
There are certainly perks for sex outside of a permanent , monogamous context , but there are also consequences to it as well , and the latter can EASILY be lifelong .
I would n't wish that on myself , and I would n't wish that on any of my female friends or on my ex-girlfriend , just so I could say that we had some fun for a little while.If this whole God and Christianity thing is as real as the Flying Spaghetti Monster , fine .
I will have lived my live believing a complete lie , treating others with respect and dignity , caring for others , donating to charity , paying my taxes , choosing the honest road instead of the easy one...and having the opportunity to lie with my future wife on my wedding night , look into her eyes , and say " I 've waited $ YEARS for this moment , and you 're the only one I 'll ever share it with .
" To me , that moment will be worth every minute of the last 23 + however-many years I will spend waiting for her .
* The exception to this is adultery ; so long as marriage is considered a legally binding contract , infidelity is a breach of that contract and should carry legal consequences for dishonoring a legal agreement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a Christian, and being a virgin by choice (I'm 23 btw, and yes, I've had a girlfriend), the rationale goes something like this: I'm not looking for any legislation pertaining to sexual intercourse*.
Actually, I'm rather disappointed as to how many Christians try to legislate morality, when that simply doesn't work, nor do I expect it to.
So no, I'm not looking to control and ration sex from the steps of Capitol Hill.
If you choose against my belief system, then that's your choice, and comes with both perks and consequences.Fire is a great thing in a fireplace.
It's great in a backyard BBQ grill.
It's great on a candle as a light source for a romantic dinner, and it's downright life saving in the middle of the woods on a cold night.
It's not, however, a very good thing in the middle of my living room.
It's not all that great in my car when I'm driving, and it's not a very good thing underneath my server rack at work.
The concept of fire hasn't changed; it's still an exothermic reaction between heat, oxygen, and a fuel source.
What has changed is the CONTEXT in which that chemical reaction takes place, and the context determines whether the fire saves a life, or if it takes one.Similarly, I believe that sex was God's idea.
It was a pretty good one, as far as I can tell.
The problem is that there is a context for it to happen in where it works best, and that's a marriage bed.
There are certainly perks for sex outside of a permanent, monogamous context, but there are also consequences to it as well, and the latter can EASILY be lifelong.
I wouldn't wish that on myself, and I wouldn't wish that on any of my female friends or on my ex-girlfriend, just so I could say that we had some fun for a little while.If this whole God and Christianity thing is as real as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, fine.
I will have lived my live believing a complete lie, treating others with respect and dignity, caring for others, donating to charity, paying my taxes, choosing the honest road instead of the easy one...and having the opportunity to lie with my future wife on my wedding night, look into her eyes, and say "I've waited $YEARS for this moment, and you're the only one I'll ever share it with.
" To me, that moment will be worth every minute of the last 23+however-many years I will spend waiting for her.
*The exception to this is adultery; so long as marriage is considered a legally binding contract, infidelity is a breach of that contract and should carry legal consequences for dishonoring a legal agreement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526158</id>
	<title>Victim harassment</title>
	<author>Moonrazor</author>
	<datestamp>1268941920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the judge has ruled that this photo is not incriminating for the girls in them, because the DA cannot prove that they produced, or distributed the photos then doesn't that mean that the girls are the "victims" here?  And if the girls are the victims here, then what does that say about a prosecutor that threatens victims with false charges unless they agree to terms set by him?  It sounds to me like the prosecutor is used to badgering the victims in his cases to get the outcome or version of the truth that he desires.  I wonder how many other victims this guy has berated or threatened with other charges in order to get them to say what he wants them to say. Might make good ammunition for defense attorneys to ask to have another look at the witnesses that this guy has used in the past.  Either way, it's not right. (and yes, I'm new to this planet)</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the judge has ruled that this photo is not incriminating for the girls in them , because the DA can not prove that they produced , or distributed the photos then does n't that mean that the girls are the " victims " here ?
And if the girls are the victims here , then what does that say about a prosecutor that threatens victims with false charges unless they agree to terms set by him ?
It sounds to me like the prosecutor is used to badgering the victims in his cases to get the outcome or version of the truth that he desires .
I wonder how many other victims this guy has berated or threatened with other charges in order to get them to say what he wants them to say .
Might make good ammunition for defense attorneys to ask to have another look at the witnesses that this guy has used in the past .
Either way , it 's not right .
( and yes , I 'm new to this planet )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the judge has ruled that this photo is not incriminating for the girls in them, because the DA cannot prove that they produced, or distributed the photos then doesn't that mean that the girls are the "victims" here?
And if the girls are the victims here, then what does that say about a prosecutor that threatens victims with false charges unless they agree to terms set by him?
It sounds to me like the prosecutor is used to badgering the victims in his cases to get the outcome or version of the truth that he desires.
I wonder how many other victims this guy has berated or threatened with other charges in order to get them to say what he wants them to say.
Might make good ammunition for defense attorneys to ask to have another look at the witnesses that this guy has used in the past.
Either way, it's not right.
(and yes, I'm new to this planet)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31528256</id>
	<title>Its been said before but...</title>
	<author>Drethon</author>
	<datestamp>1268904660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They can legally participate in sexual activity including, at the least, seeing each other nude but having pictures of the same is illegal.  Yeah I just can't see that curious logic being repeated too much until someone with the ability to do something about it "gets the picture"...<br>
<br>
Sigh...</htmltext>
<tokenext>They can legally participate in sexual activity including , at the least , seeing each other nude but having pictures of the same is illegal .
Yeah I just ca n't see that curious logic being repeated too much until someone with the ability to do something about it " gets the picture " .. . Sigh.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can legally participate in sexual activity including, at the least, seeing each other nude but having pictures of the same is illegal.
Yeah I just can't see that curious logic being repeated too much until someone with the ability to do something about it "gets the picture"...

Sigh...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31527034</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid question time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268944440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your right it is a stupid question, because it shouldn't be illegal for anyone to be in possession of them (minus the part of where the school officials are in possession of them because they stole them from the students, that part should be illegal).</p><p>This crime had no victim, the victim of child porn is the child, if the 'child' is creating the images themselves no crime was committed (unless you think that victimizing yourself should be illegal).</p><p>Additionally nudity is not pornography and thus the crime mentioned isn't even evidenced to have occurred (how do you have child porn without first having porn?).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your right it is a stupid question , because it should n't be illegal for anyone to be in possession of them ( minus the part of where the school officials are in possession of them because they stole them from the students , that part should be illegal ) .This crime had no victim , the victim of child porn is the child , if the 'child ' is creating the images themselves no crime was committed ( unless you think that victimizing yourself should be illegal ) .Additionally nudity is not pornography and thus the crime mentioned is n't even evidenced to have occurred ( how do you have child porn without first having porn ?
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your right it is a stupid question, because it shouldn't be illegal for anyone to be in possession of them (minus the part of where the school officials are in possession of them because they stole them from the students, that part should be illegal).This crime had no victim, the victim of child porn is the child, if the 'child' is creating the images themselves no crime was committed (unless you think that victimizing yourself should be illegal).Additionally nudity is not pornography and thus the crime mentioned isn't even evidenced to have occurred (how do you have child porn without first having porn?
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526444</id>
	<title>if anything....</title>
	<author>Araekyus</author>
	<datestamp>1268942760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>if anything, the education here for teenagers should be "how to better protect your privacy/cover your tracks".

Sex Ed classes in (most) schools cover the rest of the 'HIV-teen prego-STD-gifts that keep on giving' talk and all that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>if anything , the education here for teenagers should be " how to better protect your privacy/cover your tracks " .
Sex Ed classes in ( most ) schools cover the rest of the 'HIV-teen prego-STD-gifts that keep on giving ' talk and all that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if anything, the education here for teenagers should be "how to better protect your privacy/cover your tracks".
Sex Ed classes in (most) schools cover the rest of the 'HIV-teen prego-STD-gifts that keep on giving' talk and all that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526458</id>
	<title>Here's all it takes..</title>
	<author>digitalhermit</author>
	<datestamp>1268942760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From your yearbook, find a portrait pic. From the Interweb, find a semi-nude model. With Photoshop, or Gimp, or other graphic editor, place the head on the body. Put the image on your phone.  Now go show it to the principle and have that person from the yearbook brought up on indecency charges.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From your yearbook , find a portrait pic .
From the Interweb , find a semi-nude model .
With Photoshop , or Gimp , or other graphic editor , place the head on the body .
Put the image on your phone .
Now go show it to the principle and have that person from the yearbook brought up on indecency charges .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From your yearbook, find a portrait pic.
From the Interweb, find a semi-nude model.
With Photoshop, or Gimp, or other graphic editor, place the head on the body.
Put the image on your phone.
Now go show it to the principle and have that person from the yearbook brought up on indecency charges.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525852</id>
	<title>Re:It's inexplicable.</title>
	<author>alexborges</author>
	<datestamp>1268940960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This reflexion you propose is wonderful my dear sir. I concurr with your apreciation in every way depicted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This reflexion you propose is wonderful my dear sir .
I concurr with your apreciation in every way depicted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reflexion you propose is wonderful my dear sir.
I concurr with your apreciation in every way depicted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526434</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid question time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268942700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, I'm sure the cops let the principal keep copies and pass them around in the teachers lounge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I 'm sure the cops let the principal keep copies and pass them around in the teachers lounge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I'm sure the cops let the principal keep copies and pass them around in the teachers lounge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525632</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268940240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And yet, they tell us to be fruitful and multiply.  I didn't realize they were talking about diet and math.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet , they tell us to be fruitful and multiply .
I did n't realize they were talking about diet and math .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet, they tell us to be fruitful and multiply.
I didn't realize they were talking about diet and math.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526282</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid question time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268942280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably for the same reason why it's not illegal for a lawyer to be in possession of a fully automatic firearm that is evidence in a crime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably for the same reason why it 's not illegal for a lawyer to be in possession of a fully automatic firearm that is evidence in a crime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably for the same reason why it's not illegal for a lawyer to be in possession of a fully automatic firearm that is evidence in a crime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31527178</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>c++0xFF</author>
	<datestamp>1268944800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe so but there are a lot of parents that don't want naked pictures of their perfect child floating around the school</p></div><p>I doubt many kids are happy if pictures of them are "floating around the school" -- nude or not.  At that point, it becomes a matter of privacy, not of sexuality.</p><p>The sexual part just makes the issue worse as it encourages the pictures to spread and creates additional emotional trauma when it spreads beyond where it was intended.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe so but there are a lot of parents that do n't want naked pictures of their perfect child floating around the schoolI doubt many kids are happy if pictures of them are " floating around the school " -- nude or not .
At that point , it becomes a matter of privacy , not of sexuality.The sexual part just makes the issue worse as it encourages the pictures to spread and creates additional emotional trauma when it spreads beyond where it was intended .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe so but there are a lot of parents that don't want naked pictures of their perfect child floating around the schoolI doubt many kids are happy if pictures of them are "floating around the school" -- nude or not.
At that point, it becomes a matter of privacy, not of sexuality.The sexual part just makes the issue worse as it encourages the pictures to spread and creates additional emotional trauma when it spreads beyond where it was intended.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31528774</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268906460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can't wait till you have a slutty daughter, who is pregnant at 13, by a 26 year old loser.</p></div><p>Neither can I!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't wait till you have a slutty daughter , who is pregnant at 13 , by a 26 year old loser.Neither can I !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't wait till you have a slutty daughter, who is pregnant at 13, by a 26 year old loser.Neither can I!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31529280</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268908200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The sex thing is driven by the leaders of patriarchal societies desire to maintain the status quo. Religion is just a tool to drive that agenda. As women hold an enormous amount of power over men via sex, demonizing sex serves to marginalize their power.</p><p><i>Disclaimer: I haven't formally studied sociology, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. If you don't believe me, you can ask the dirty whore who accompanied me.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The sex thing is driven by the leaders of patriarchal societies desire to maintain the status quo .
Religion is just a tool to drive that agenda .
As women hold an enormous amount of power over men via sex , demonizing sex serves to marginalize their power.Disclaimer : I have n't formally studied sociology , but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night .
If you do n't believe me , you can ask the dirty whore who accompanied me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sex thing is driven by the leaders of patriarchal societies desire to maintain the status quo.
Religion is just a tool to drive that agenda.
As women hold an enormous amount of power over men via sex, demonizing sex serves to marginalize their power.Disclaimer: I haven't formally studied sociology, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
If you don't believe me, you can ask the dirty whore who accompanied me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31527656</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Jedi Alec</author>
	<datestamp>1268902920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>As someone who actually has children and remembers well growing up himself, I tell you: No child will engage in sexual intercourse if there is something else interesting to do.</i></p><p>Ehmm, you refer to yourself as "him" and state you remember well growing up...yet state <b>as fact</b> that provided enough distraction children(i'll presume you include teenagers in that group) will not have the urge to experiment with sex? Are you entirely sure you remember what it was like to be a 14 year old boy with the hormones raging around?</p><p>The urge to have sex is one of the strongest we humans have. Doesn't matter what the church or the teacher or daddy says, it will happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who actually has children and remembers well growing up himself , I tell you : No child will engage in sexual intercourse if there is something else interesting to do.Ehmm , you refer to yourself as " him " and state you remember well growing up...yet state as fact that provided enough distraction children ( i 'll presume you include teenagers in that group ) will not have the urge to experiment with sex ?
Are you entirely sure you remember what it was like to be a 14 year old boy with the hormones raging around ? The urge to have sex is one of the strongest we humans have .
Does n't matter what the church or the teacher or daddy says , it will happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who actually has children and remembers well growing up himself, I tell you: No child will engage in sexual intercourse if there is something else interesting to do.Ehmm, you refer to yourself as "him" and state you remember well growing up...yet state as fact that provided enough distraction children(i'll presume you include teenagers in that group) will not have the urge to experiment with sex?
Are you entirely sure you remember what it was like to be a 14 year old boy with the hormones raging around?The urge to have sex is one of the strongest we humans have.
Doesn't matter what the church or the teacher or daddy says, it will happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525458</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1268939460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The sex thing is driven by the Christian Taliban. Christianity, like the other desert superstitions, seeks to control and ration sex.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The sex thing is driven by the Christian Taliban .
Christianity , like the other desert superstitions , seeks to control and ration sex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sex thing is driven by the Christian Taliban.
Christianity, like the other desert superstitions, seeks to control and ration sex.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525612</id>
	<title>Wait a second....</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1268940180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the face of it, it sounds good - it's unlikely parents will agree to child pornography prosecutions against their own child. But looking closer at it, this is just batshit-insanity dressed up with a legal fig-leaf. "Appearing in a photograph provides no evidence as to whether that person possessed or transmitted the photo" sounds to me like they judges are merely arguing that childporn charges do no apply because images themselves do not provide much evidence of who took the picture. It still completely neglects the issue that the current childporn laws apply to people under the age of consent who took naked pictures of themselves! Yes, I know, then there could be a loophole that pedophiles just force their victims to take their own pictures. Honestly - I don't care. The current laws not only make criminals out of people who really didn't do anything wrong, but also terminally fuck someone for the rest of their lives just because they took a picture of themselves.</p><p>Yes, yes, pedophilia is the root password to the Constitution, etc. But apathy and fatalism isn't gonna cut it. Write to your congress critters, and interrupt people who blather on about the danger of random strangers taking pictures. Tell them that they ought to look up the weird uncle first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the face of it , it sounds good - it 's unlikely parents will agree to child pornography prosecutions against their own child .
But looking closer at it , this is just batshit-insanity dressed up with a legal fig-leaf .
" Appearing in a photograph provides no evidence as to whether that person possessed or transmitted the photo " sounds to me like they judges are merely arguing that childporn charges do no apply because images themselves do not provide much evidence of who took the picture .
It still completely neglects the issue that the current childporn laws apply to people under the age of consent who took naked pictures of themselves !
Yes , I know , then there could be a loophole that pedophiles just force their victims to take their own pictures .
Honestly - I do n't care .
The current laws not only make criminals out of people who really did n't do anything wrong , but also terminally fuck someone for the rest of their lives just because they took a picture of themselves.Yes , yes , pedophilia is the root password to the Constitution , etc .
But apathy and fatalism is n't gon na cut it .
Write to your congress critters , and interrupt people who blather on about the danger of random strangers taking pictures .
Tell them that they ought to look up the weird uncle first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the face of it, it sounds good - it's unlikely parents will agree to child pornography prosecutions against their own child.
But looking closer at it, this is just batshit-insanity dressed up with a legal fig-leaf.
"Appearing in a photograph provides no evidence as to whether that person possessed or transmitted the photo" sounds to me like they judges are merely arguing that childporn charges do no apply because images themselves do not provide much evidence of who took the picture.
It still completely neglects the issue that the current childporn laws apply to people under the age of consent who took naked pictures of themselves!
Yes, I know, then there could be a loophole that pedophiles just force their victims to take their own pictures.
Honestly - I don't care.
The current laws not only make criminals out of people who really didn't do anything wrong, but also terminally fuck someone for the rest of their lives just because they took a picture of themselves.Yes, yes, pedophilia is the root password to the Constitution, etc.
But apathy and fatalism isn't gonna cut it.
Write to your congress critters, and interrupt people who blather on about the danger of random strangers taking pictures.
Tell them that they ought to look up the weird uncle first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31533986</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268994060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"I've waited $YEARS for this moment, and you're the only one I'll ever share it with." To me, that moment will be worth every minute of the last 23+however-many years I will spend waiting for her.</p></div><p>That moment? All 2 seconds of it before it's all over?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 've waited $ YEARS for this moment , and you 're the only one I 'll ever share it with .
" To me , that moment will be worth every minute of the last 23 + however-many years I will spend waiting for her.That moment ?
All 2 seconds of it before it 's all over ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I've waited $YEARS for this moment, and you're the only one I'll ever share it with.
" To me, that moment will be worth every minute of the last 23+however-many years I will spend waiting for her.That moment?
All 2 seconds of it before it's all over?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31530732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31529514</id>
	<title>So beatings and forced sodomy in the barracks?!</title>
	<author>FatSean</author>
	<datestamp>1268909220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, the homo-eroticism of military life is not the way I want to raise my son.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , the homo-eroticism of military life is not the way I want to raise my son .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, the homo-eroticism of military life is not the way I want to raise my son.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525820</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1268940840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Maybe so but there are a lot of parents that don't want naked pictures of their perfect child floating around the school and would like to use rule of law to discourage "sexting." It's all about appearances; the parents don't want to look like they raised their kids poorly and the state doesn't want to look like they're soft on crime.</i></p><p>All about appearance?  Not quite, those parents don't want to parent, instead they want the nanny state to parent.  And soft on crime?  What crimes?  Victimless crimes?  They should never have been added to the law books.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe so but there are a lot of parents that do n't want naked pictures of their perfect child floating around the school and would like to use rule of law to discourage " sexting .
" It 's all about appearances ; the parents do n't want to look like they raised their kids poorly and the state does n't want to look like they 're soft on crime.All about appearance ?
Not quite , those parents do n't want to parent , instead they want the nanny state to parent .
And soft on crime ?
What crimes ?
Victimless crimes ?
They should never have been added to the law books .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe so but there are a lot of parents that don't want naked pictures of their perfect child floating around the school and would like to use rule of law to discourage "sexting.
" It's all about appearances; the parents don't want to look like they raised their kids poorly and the state doesn't want to look like they're soft on crime.All about appearance?
Not quite, those parents don't want to parent, instead they want the nanny state to parent.
And soft on crime?
What crimes?
Victimless crimes?
They should never have been added to the law books.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526656</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268943360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But most of the tools to raise children correctly are considered 'old fashioned' or even unacceptable.  Martial punishment when young, strong leadership from the father and a nurturing mother (which is, of course, 'sexist' because men and women are the same), and actually following through with punishments (the horror!).  The only proper method of parenting is found in an after-school program.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But most of the tools to raise children correctly are considered 'old fashioned ' or even unacceptable .
Martial punishment when young , strong leadership from the father and a nurturing mother ( which is , of course , 'sexist ' because men and women are the same ) , and actually following through with punishments ( the horror ! ) .
The only proper method of parenting is found in an after-school program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But most of the tools to raise children correctly are considered 'old fashioned' or even unacceptable.
Martial punishment when young, strong leadership from the father and a nurturing mother (which is, of course, 'sexist' because men and women are the same), and actually following through with punishments (the horror!).
The only proper method of parenting is found in an after-school program.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525654</id>
	<title>No warrant == stolen</title>
	<author>flyingfsck</author>
	<datestamp>1268940300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So the school staff stole the phones from the students and then found pictures on them...

I think there are multiple grounds to get these cases thrown out of court.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the school staff stole the phones from the students and then found pictures on them.. . I think there are multiple grounds to get these cases thrown out of court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the school staff stole the phones from the students and then found pictures on them...

I think there are multiple grounds to get these cases thrown out of court.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525888</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>theIsovist</author>
	<datestamp>1268941080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dear sir,

Please rephrase your comment and magically watch as you move from -1 flame bait to insightful.  watch and learn:

"The issue with sex in America comes partially from America's Christian history.  Many of our laws stem loosely from the laws written in the bible, and as such, there are many laws restricting sex and sexual expression.  As we grow in maturity as a country, we now feel that some of these laws are outdated, and should be removed.  However, there are still smaller sexually conservative groups that will put forth the effort to control what other people do in (or more importantly out of) bed."

Notice the lack of words like "Taliban" and claims of "desert superstition".  Follow my lead and see your karma improve today!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear sir , Please rephrase your comment and magically watch as you move from -1 flame bait to insightful .
watch and learn : " The issue with sex in America comes partially from America 's Christian history .
Many of our laws stem loosely from the laws written in the bible , and as such , there are many laws restricting sex and sexual expression .
As we grow in maturity as a country , we now feel that some of these laws are outdated , and should be removed .
However , there are still smaller sexually conservative groups that will put forth the effort to control what other people do in ( or more importantly out of ) bed .
" Notice the lack of words like " Taliban " and claims of " desert superstition " .
Follow my lead and see your karma improve today !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear sir,

Please rephrase your comment and magically watch as you move from -1 flame bait to insightful.
watch and learn:

"The issue with sex in America comes partially from America's Christian history.
Many of our laws stem loosely from the laws written in the bible, and as such, there are many laws restricting sex and sexual expression.
As we grow in maturity as a country, we now feel that some of these laws are outdated, and should be removed.
However, there are still smaller sexually conservative groups that will put forth the effort to control what other people do in (or more importantly out of) bed.
"

Notice the lack of words like "Taliban" and claims of "desert superstition".
Follow my lead and see your karma improve today!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525540</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1268939880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So maybe they should raise their child correctly then?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So maybe they should raise their child correctly then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So maybe they should raise their child correctly then?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525938</id>
	<title>Background on the ideas</title>
	<author>ThousandStars</author>
	<datestamp>1268941260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For those seeking more background on the general insanity of this story and "sexting" in general, see Slate.com's <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2211169/" title="slate.com">Textual Misconduct</a> [slate.com] and the Economist on <a href="http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story\_id=14165460" title="economist.com">America's unjust sex laws: An ever harsher approach is doing more harm than good, but it is being copied around the world</a> [economist.com]. The latter is tangentially related to the main issue but nonetheless useful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For those seeking more background on the general insanity of this story and " sexting " in general , see Slate.com 's Textual Misconduct [ slate.com ] and the Economist on America 's unjust sex laws : An ever harsher approach is doing more harm than good , but it is being copied around the world [ economist.com ] .
The latter is tangentially related to the main issue but nonetheless useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those seeking more background on the general insanity of this story and "sexting" in general, see Slate.com's Textual Misconduct [slate.com] and the Economist on America's unjust sex laws: An ever harsher approach is doing more harm than good, but it is being copied around the world [economist.com].
The latter is tangentially related to the main issue but nonetheless useful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31530360</id>
	<title>Holy Shit!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268913360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did judges actually use common sense in a ruling?  What the hell is this world coming to?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did judges actually use common sense in a ruling ?
What the hell is this world coming to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did judges actually use common sense in a ruling?
What the hell is this world coming to?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526884</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>hduff</author>
	<datestamp>1268944020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>&lt;quote&gt;<br><br>&lt;quote&gt;&lt;p&gt;Hell, we even had sex &lt;i&gt;like every other teenager does&lt;/i&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/quote&gt;<br><br>&lt;p&gt;I never had sex as a teen, you insensitive clod!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/quote&gt;<br><br>Or as adult, Slashdotter?</tt></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hell , we even had sex like every other teenager does.I never had sex as a teen , you insensitive clod ! Or as adult , Slashdotter ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hell, we even had sex like every other teenager does.I never had sex as a teen, you insensitive clod!Or as adult, Slashdotter?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526212</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid question time</title>
	<author>Anonymous Struct</author>
	<datestamp>1268942040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It ought to be illegal to even SEE nude pictures of underage children.  Everybody involved should be in jail!  If we don't keep the children safe, how will they ever grow up to enjoy the dystopic world we're building for them by keeping them safe?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It ought to be illegal to even SEE nude pictures of underage children .
Everybody involved should be in jail !
If we do n't keep the children safe , how will they ever grow up to enjoy the dystopic world we 're building for them by keeping them safe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It ought to be illegal to even SEE nude pictures of underage children.
Everybody involved should be in jail!
If we don't keep the children safe, how will they ever grow up to enjoy the dystopic world we're building for them by keeping them safe?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525354</id>
	<title>Insanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268938920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the students and their parents could be prosecuted if they did not participate in an after-school 'education program.'</p></div><p>I love the fucking hypocrisy around sex in USA. Sure, violence and killing people is all okay, but when it's about natural human function like sex it's all bad and must be hidden. It's a great irony that just an hour ago I read news that <a href="http://coneymedia.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/you-still-cant-say-tampon-or-vagina-in-a-tv-ad-but-networks-stand-up-for-erectile-disfunction/" title="wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">you can't even say tampon on US TV commercial <i>about tampon products</i> </a> [wordpress.com]. Women bleed once a month. Accept it and get on with your lifes.</p><p>When I was a teen we sent back and forth nude pictures of ourself with my girlfriend, and I suspect many others did too. Hell, we even had sex <i>like every other teenager does</i>. 15-16 year old is perfectly capable to understand sex. Age of consent is 14-16 in most of the world and 17-18 in more liberal US states. It makes absolutely no sense that you can have sex but not send a dirty picture of yourself to your boy/girlfriend, and if you do you will be taken to some kind of "education program".</p><p>The fact that parents can block some "sexting" prosecution is a stupid point. If I was a parent I wouldn't want to interfere with my 16-17 year old teen sex life, and I sure as hell didn't want my parents to interfere with mine when I was that age.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the students and their parents could be prosecuted if they did not participate in an after-school 'education program .
'I love the fucking hypocrisy around sex in USA .
Sure , violence and killing people is all okay , but when it 's about natural human function like sex it 's all bad and must be hidden .
It 's a great irony that just an hour ago I read news that you ca n't even say tampon on US TV commercial about tampon products [ wordpress.com ] .
Women bleed once a month .
Accept it and get on with your lifes.When I was a teen we sent back and forth nude pictures of ourself with my girlfriend , and I suspect many others did too .
Hell , we even had sex like every other teenager does .
15-16 year old is perfectly capable to understand sex .
Age of consent is 14-16 in most of the world and 17-18 in more liberal US states .
It makes absolutely no sense that you can have sex but not send a dirty picture of yourself to your boy/girlfriend , and if you do you will be taken to some kind of " education program " .The fact that parents can block some " sexting " prosecution is a stupid point .
If I was a parent I would n't want to interfere with my 16-17 year old teen sex life , and I sure as hell did n't want my parents to interfere with mine when I was that age .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the students and their parents could be prosecuted if they did not participate in an after-school 'education program.
'I love the fucking hypocrisy around sex in USA.
Sure, violence and killing people is all okay, but when it's about natural human function like sex it's all bad and must be hidden.
It's a great irony that just an hour ago I read news that you can't even say tampon on US TV commercial about tampon products  [wordpress.com].
Women bleed once a month.
Accept it and get on with your lifes.When I was a teen we sent back and forth nude pictures of ourself with my girlfriend, and I suspect many others did too.
Hell, we even had sex like every other teenager does.
15-16 year old is perfectly capable to understand sex.
Age of consent is 14-16 in most of the world and 17-18 in more liberal US states.
It makes absolutely no sense that you can have sex but not send a dirty picture of yourself to your boy/girlfriend, and if you do you will be taken to some kind of "education program".The fact that parents can block some "sexting" prosecution is a stupid point.
If I was a parent I wouldn't want to interfere with my 16-17 year old teen sex life, and I sure as hell didn't want my parents to interfere with mine when I was that age.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525914</id>
	<title>Re:I simply don't understand</title>
	<author>ipquickly</author>
	<datestamp>1268941200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't help society.</p><p>For most of human history teenagers were already adults.<br>Many 12 year olds are capable of having kids. That's how it has been for thousands and hundreds of thousands of years.<br>That's how it will be for thousands of years to come.</p><p>It's just our society that puts 'artificial' boundaries on behavior, sometimes resulting in people in their 20's still behaving like kids.<br>As our society became more complex, and our roles in it required more skill, people became more dependent on their parents while being educated into becoming a 'contributing' part of society.</p><p>For most of human history, that was not the case.</p><p>Then there are those sick f@ckers who 'like' looking at pictures of naked kids. There must be laws against that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't help society.For most of human history teenagers were already adults.Many 12 year olds are capable of having kids .
That 's how it has been for thousands and hundreds of thousands of years.That 's how it will be for thousands of years to come.It 's just our society that puts 'artificial ' boundaries on behavior , sometimes resulting in people in their 20 's still behaving like kids.As our society became more complex , and our roles in it required more skill , people became more dependent on their parents while being educated into becoming a 'contributing ' part of society.For most of human history , that was not the case.Then there are those sick f @ ckers who 'like ' looking at pictures of naked kids .
There must be laws against that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't help society.For most of human history teenagers were already adults.Many 12 year olds are capable of having kids.
That's how it has been for thousands and hundreds of thousands of years.That's how it will be for thousands of years to come.It's just our society that puts 'artificial' boundaries on behavior, sometimes resulting in people in their 20's still behaving like kids.As our society became more complex, and our roles in it required more skill, people became more dependent on their parents while being educated into becoming a 'contributing' part of society.For most of human history, that was not the case.Then there are those sick f@ckers who 'like' looking at pictures of naked kids.
There must be laws against that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31532278</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>jesset77</author>
	<datestamp>1268927580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So the solution is to <b>have their own children branded as sex offenders after they've committed the act</b>?!?!?!</p><p>Yeah, you've thought that out well.</p></div><p>... Nooooo.... the solution is to have <strong>other</strong> people's children branded as sex offenders as scapegoats to put the fear of god in your own.</p><p>Keep in mind, to a conservative, throwing other people under the bus is the most effective means of propulsion available. What leaves me truly transfixed from one day to the next is how imaginatively they invent new buses out of thin air for the purpose of conveniently throwing people under them.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the solution is to have their own children branded as sex offenders after they 've committed the act ? ! ? ! ?
! Yeah , you 've thought that out well.... Nooooo.... the solution is to have other people 's children branded as sex offenders as scapegoats to put the fear of god in your own.Keep in mind , to a conservative , throwing other people under the bus is the most effective means of propulsion available .
What leaves me truly transfixed from one day to the next is how imaginatively they invent new buses out of thin air for the purpose of conveniently throwing people under them .
: D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the solution is to have their own children branded as sex offenders after they've committed the act?!?!?
!Yeah, you've thought that out well.... Nooooo.... the solution is to have other people's children branded as sex offenders as scapegoats to put the fear of god in your own.Keep in mind, to a conservative, throwing other people under the bus is the most effective means of propulsion available.
What leaves me truly transfixed from one day to the next is how imaginatively they invent new buses out of thin air for the purpose of conveniently throwing people under them.
:D
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526342</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a second....</title>
	<author>am 2k</author>
	<datestamp>1268942400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, I know, then there could be a loophole that pedophiles just force their victims to take their own pictures.</p></div><p>Uh, as it is right now, in that situation the victim would get prosecuted, not the pedophile. How is that better?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I know , then there could be a loophole that pedophiles just force their victims to take their own pictures.Uh , as it is right now , in that situation the victim would get prosecuted , not the pedophile .
How is that better ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I know, then there could be a loophole that pedophiles just force their victims to take their own pictures.Uh, as it is right now, in that situation the victim would get prosecuted, not the pedophile.
How is that better?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526640</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid question time</title>
	<author>earlymon</author>
	<datestamp>1268943360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why isn't it illegal for the school officials to be in possession of nude pictures of underage children?</p></div><p>To you and the people arguing with you, I say you nailed it in one.</p><p>Not for prurient reasons.</p><p>As I recall, very recently we had to put up with news - again from Pennsylvania! - that a school was using MacBook built-in cameras to illegally spy on children.  And that raised the specter of their guilt in kiddie porn, something they didn't count on.</p><p>I'm glad I don't live in Pennsylvania, where children are being crushed under the jack-boots of over-self-empowered school systems.</p><p>I agree - prosecute them as child pornographers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is n't it illegal for the school officials to be in possession of nude pictures of underage children ? To you and the people arguing with you , I say you nailed it in one.Not for prurient reasons.As I recall , very recently we had to put up with news - again from Pennsylvania !
- that a school was using MacBook built-in cameras to illegally spy on children .
And that raised the specter of their guilt in kiddie porn , something they did n't count on.I 'm glad I do n't live in Pennsylvania , where children are being crushed under the jack-boots of over-self-empowered school systems.I agree - prosecute them as child pornographers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why isn't it illegal for the school officials to be in possession of nude pictures of underage children?To you and the people arguing with you, I say you nailed it in one.Not for prurient reasons.As I recall, very recently we had to put up with news - again from Pennsylvania!
- that a school was using MacBook built-in cameras to illegally spy on children.
And that raised the specter of their guilt in kiddie porn, something they didn't count on.I'm glad I don't live in Pennsylvania, where children are being crushed under the jack-boots of over-self-empowered school systems.I agree - prosecute them as child pornographers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31533008</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268934540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OMG, as someone who has children and remembers well growing up himself, I assure you that your memory of being a teenage boy is faulty.  Once the hormones hit, that's it.  And having watched my daughter and her friends grow up, it's the same for girls, only less subtle.</p><p>And the later teenagers engage in any sexual activity the better.  It's not a question of having fun.  It's a question of pregnancy, STDs, and emotional damage.</p><p>So, IMHO, give them sex education, then chaperone the hell out of them.  You'll never stop it, but you'll slow it down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OMG , as someone who has children and remembers well growing up himself , I assure you that your memory of being a teenage boy is faulty .
Once the hormones hit , that 's it .
And having watched my daughter and her friends grow up , it 's the same for girls , only less subtle.And the later teenagers engage in any sexual activity the better .
It 's not a question of having fun .
It 's a question of pregnancy , STDs , and emotional damage.So , IMHO , give them sex education , then chaperone the hell out of them .
You 'll never stop it , but you 'll slow it down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OMG, as someone who has children and remembers well growing up himself, I assure you that your memory of being a teenage boy is faulty.
Once the hormones hit, that's it.
And having watched my daughter and her friends grow up, it's the same for girls, only less subtle.And the later teenagers engage in any sexual activity the better.
It's not a question of having fun.
It's a question of pregnancy, STDs, and emotional damage.So, IMHO, give them sex education, then chaperone the hell out of them.
You'll never stop it, but you'll slow it down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526748</id>
	<title>rights</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1268943660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It would likely depend on how these pics were found. If they were found on a phone confiscated at school, where's the search warrant?</i></p><p>Students on campus don't have rights.  That's how school are able to get away with forcing drug testing of students.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would likely depend on how these pics were found .
If they were found on a phone confiscated at school , where 's the search warrant ? Students on campus do n't have rights .
That 's how school are able to get away with forcing drug testing of students .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would likely depend on how these pics were found.
If they were found on a phone confiscated at school, where's the search warrant?Students on campus don't have rights.
That's how school are able to get away with forcing drug testing of students.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526074</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>black88</author>
	<datestamp>1268941680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a great point,  and the key here is,  if the parents don't want their kids engaging in what they consider to be inappropriate behavior,  they should be willing to be fucking parents and quit trying to push the responsibility elsewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a great point , and the key here is , if the parents do n't want their kids engaging in what they consider to be inappropriate behavior , they should be willing to be fucking parents and quit trying to push the responsibility elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a great point,  and the key here is,  if the parents don't want their kids engaging in what they consider to be inappropriate behavior,  they should be willing to be fucking parents and quit trying to push the responsibility elsewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526538</id>
	<title>what's the point, dumb law</title>
	<author>HelloKitty</author>
	<datestamp>1268943000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's not pornography if you send a picture of yourself.   this is commonsense.   you own you.</p><p>of course, if who you sent it to sends it out to everyone else...  i could see that being 'wrong'.   they have no right to do that to you, especially if you're a minor...</p><p>i really don't get why what i just said isn't just the simple law...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's not pornography if you send a picture of yourself .
this is commonsense .
you own you.of course , if who you sent it to sends it out to everyone else... i could see that being 'wrong' .
they have no right to do that to you , especially if you 're a minor...i really do n't get why what i just said is n't just the simple law.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's not pornography if you send a picture of yourself.
this is commonsense.
you own you.of course, if who you sent it to sends it out to everyone else...  i could see that being 'wrong'.
they have no right to do that to you, especially if you're a minor...i really don't get why what i just said isn't just the simple law...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31533590</id>
	<title>Re:Aren't we forgetting something?</title>
	<author>joebagodonuts</author>
	<datestamp>1269029100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&lt;quote&gt;Just because 'someone' thinks it's porn does not make it so.&lt;/quote&gt;<br><br>Sure it does. Hell, that's the definition. If I think it's porn, then it's porn. The reason "porn" is difficult to define is because what turns nudity into pornography is subjective.<br><br>This isn't about sex or nudity, it's about control. Always has been</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because 'someone ' thinks it 's porn does not make it so.Sure it does .
Hell , that 's the definition .
If I think it 's porn , then it 's porn .
The reason " porn " is difficult to define is because what turns nudity into pornography is subjective.This is n't about sex or nudity , it 's about control .
Always has been</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because 'someone' thinks it's porn does not make it so.Sure it does.
Hell, that's the definition.
If I think it's porn, then it's porn.
The reason "porn" is difficult to define is because what turns nudity into pornography is subjective.This isn't about sex or nudity, it's about control.
Always has been
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526560</id>
	<title>Aren't we forgetting something?</title>
	<author>nitrowing</author>
	<datestamp>1268943060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pictures of naked people aren't porn. Pictures of naked children are not porn. Porn is sexual. Nudity isn't. Just because 'someone' thinks it's porn does not make it so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pictures of naked people are n't porn .
Pictures of naked children are not porn .
Porn is sexual .
Nudity is n't .
Just because 'someone ' thinks it 's porn does not make it so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pictures of naked people aren't porn.
Pictures of naked children are not porn.
Porn is sexual.
Nudity isn't.
Just because 'someone' thinks it's porn does not make it so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31528838</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Qubit</author>
	<datestamp>1268906640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>there are a lot of parents that don't want <em>naked pictures of their perfect child</em> floating around the school...the state doesn't want to look like they're <em>soft on crime</em>.</p></div><p>If the naked pictures are, in fact, perfect, wouldn't the state be more worried about looking like they're getting <em>hard</em> on crime?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>there are a lot of parents that do n't want naked pictures of their perfect child floating around the school...the state does n't want to look like they 're soft on crime.If the naked pictures are , in fact , perfect , would n't the state be more worried about looking like they 're getting hard on crime ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there are a lot of parents that don't want naked pictures of their perfect child floating around the school...the state doesn't want to look like they're soft on crime.If the naked pictures are, in fact, perfect, wouldn't the state be more worried about looking like they're getting hard on crime?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525828</id>
	<title>Re:IANAL, but</title>
	<author>alexborges</author>
	<datestamp>1268940840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By god!</p><p>You ARE anal, aint you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By god ! You ARE anal , aint you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By god!You ARE anal, aint you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31530420</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1268913780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Translation: you had sex one night as a teen, when you were so drunk you don't remember anything that happened?
</p><p>
He didn't say every teenager  <em>remembers</em> having sex when they had it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Translation : you had sex one night as a teen , when you were so drunk you do n't remember anything that happened ?
He did n't say every teenager remembers having sex when they had it : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Translation: you had sex one night as a teen, when you were so drunk you don't remember anything that happened?
He didn't say every teenager  remembers having sex when they had it :)
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525444</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268939400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If I was a parent I wouldn't want to interfere with my 16-17 year old teen sex life, and I sure as hell didn't want my parents to interfere with mine when I was that age.</p></div></blockquote><p>  Maybe so but there are a lot of parents that don't want naked pictures of their perfect child floating around the school and would like to use rule of law to discourage "sexting."  It's all about appearances; the parents don't want to look like they raised their kids poorly and the state doesn't want to look like they're soft on crime.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I was a parent I would n't want to interfere with my 16-17 year old teen sex life , and I sure as hell did n't want my parents to interfere with mine when I was that age .
Maybe so but there are a lot of parents that do n't want naked pictures of their perfect child floating around the school and would like to use rule of law to discourage " sexting .
" It 's all about appearances ; the parents do n't want to look like they raised their kids poorly and the state does n't want to look like they 're soft on crime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I was a parent I wouldn't want to interfere with my 16-17 year old teen sex life, and I sure as hell didn't want my parents to interfere with mine when I was that age.
Maybe so but there are a lot of parents that don't want naked pictures of their perfect child floating around the school and would like to use rule of law to discourage "sexting.
"  It's all about appearances; the parents don't want to look like they raised their kids poorly and the state doesn't want to look like they're soft on crime.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526602</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Dragonslicer</author>
	<datestamp>1268943240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...when was the last time any "christian" stopped you from raising your kid the way you wanted. HMMM?</p></div><p>I dunno, when was the last time a legislature passed a law?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...when was the last time any " christian " stopped you from raising your kid the way you wanted .
HMMM ? I dunno , when was the last time a legislature passed a law ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...when was the last time any "christian" stopped you from raising your kid the way you wanted.
HMMM?I dunno, when was the last time a legislature passed a law?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525794</id>
	<title>Re:It's inexplicable.</title>
	<author>FredFredrickson</author>
	<datestamp>1268940720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem isn't the principles, it's the fact that most people adopt principles from what they've learned from society, and never take it upon themselves to analyze the reason for their principles. They never ask themselves if it actually makes sense according to their current belief system. My theory is that once you start asking "why?" it's a short road to existential crisis. Most people avoided philosophy class (or didn't pay attention) because it rocked the boat a bit much..</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is n't the principles , it 's the fact that most people adopt principles from what they 've learned from society , and never take it upon themselves to analyze the reason for their principles .
They never ask themselves if it actually makes sense according to their current belief system .
My theory is that once you start asking " why ?
" it 's a short road to existential crisis .
Most people avoided philosophy class ( or did n't pay attention ) because it rocked the boat a bit much. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem isn't the principles, it's the fact that most people adopt principles from what they've learned from society, and never take it upon themselves to analyze the reason for their principles.
They never ask themselves if it actually makes sense according to their current belief system.
My theory is that once you start asking "why?
" it's a short road to existential crisis.
Most people avoided philosophy class (or didn't pay attention) because it rocked the boat a bit much..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31532194</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1268927100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True, but I'll bet they don't want their kid arrested and hauled off to juvie either. Talk about embarrassing!</p><p>They sure don't want it in the newspaper!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True , but I 'll bet they do n't want their kid arrested and hauled off to juvie either .
Talk about embarrassing ! They sure do n't want it in the newspaper !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, but I'll bet they don't want their kid arrested and hauled off to juvie either.
Talk about embarrassing!They sure don't want it in the newspaper!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525496</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268939580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>He said "every other teenager", not "every teenager".</htmltext>
<tokenext>He said " every other teenager " , not " every teenager " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He said "every other teenager", not "every teenager".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31527290</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid question time</title>
	<author>c++0xFF</author>
	<datestamp>1268945220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the same reason that it's not illegal for police officers to be in possession of confiscated narcotics.</p><p>Now, had the officials been discovered with a cache of pictures they'd kept private, we'd have a completely different situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the same reason that it 's not illegal for police officers to be in possession of confiscated narcotics.Now , had the officials been discovered with a cache of pictures they 'd kept private , we 'd have a completely different situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the same reason that it's not illegal for police officers to be in possession of confiscated narcotics.Now, had the officials been discovered with a cache of pictures they'd kept private, we'd have a completely different situation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525934</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>AlexBirch</author>
	<datestamp>1268941260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Christianity, like the other desert superstitions, seeks to control and ration sex</p></div><p>
Oh, I thought marriage was designed to ration sex...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Christianity , like the other desert superstitions , seeks to control and ration sex Oh , I thought marriage was designed to ration sex.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Christianity, like the other desert superstitions, seeks to control and ration sex
Oh, I thought marriage was designed to ration sex...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31533978</id>
	<title>Wait a second, yourself....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268993880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I *AM* a weird uncle, you insensitive clod !</p><p>And, no, I am NOT a pedophile, nor a pederast, nor a sex criminal of any flavor.whatsoever.</p><p>I hear so much about how it's UNCLES that do all the damage, and you drop me in that same "suspicious" bucket because my brother and sister have female offspring. You know what, go to hell yourself. When I am no longer permitted to play frisbee with my nieces or nephews and their teenage friends of both sexes because you told a congress critter to concentrate on uncles, I hope you're proud of yourself for dismantling intergenerational contact, one of the few remaining opportunities that WEIRD adults like myself get to listen to kids and just maybe pass on a little friendly advice from experience. I know you mean well, but you're just transferring the FUD to another inappropriate target, and you honestly expect a congressman to differentiate and make a sensible decision based on your advising them to "look up weird uncles first", a decision they clearly weren't capable of before being talked to? Idiot.</p><p>I know it's an ENORMOUSLY unpopular and politically incorrect thing to say, but unfortunately child sexual abuse, like any and all other crimes, are crimes of choice of the offender, and the only way to eliminate them completely is to eliminate ALL choice. That's never going to happen, and it's synonymous with fascism. If you don't have the freedom to commit crimes, then you don't have freedom. We can up our prevention efforts to a certain degree, but we have to learn to live with the facts of life: sometimes people will be murdered, people will be injured, people will be raped, people will be robbed, and we can only act AFTER the fact of so many of these nasties. They can NEVER be prevented 100\%, but so many folk these days seem to think that's actually a desirable outcome, and we end up with even more ridiculous laws and scenarios as the article describes.<br>Calm down, get a clue, and realize that it's a dangerous, dirty world out there, but there's so much MORE beauty and joy and happiness to be had by everyone if you'd spend a little less time worrying and freaking out whenever anything bad actually does happen. You're missing out on life, by focussing on death and damage and disease.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I * AM * a weird uncle , you insensitive clod ! And , no , I am NOT a pedophile , nor a pederast , nor a sex criminal of any flavor.whatsoever.I hear so much about how it 's UNCLES that do all the damage , and you drop me in that same " suspicious " bucket because my brother and sister have female offspring .
You know what , go to hell yourself .
When I am no longer permitted to play frisbee with my nieces or nephews and their teenage friends of both sexes because you told a congress critter to concentrate on uncles , I hope you 're proud of yourself for dismantling intergenerational contact , one of the few remaining opportunities that WEIRD adults like myself get to listen to kids and just maybe pass on a little friendly advice from experience .
I know you mean well , but you 're just transferring the FUD to another inappropriate target , and you honestly expect a congressman to differentiate and make a sensible decision based on your advising them to " look up weird uncles first " , a decision they clearly were n't capable of before being talked to ?
Idiot.I know it 's an ENORMOUSLY unpopular and politically incorrect thing to say , but unfortunately child sexual abuse , like any and all other crimes , are crimes of choice of the offender , and the only way to eliminate them completely is to eliminate ALL choice .
That 's never going to happen , and it 's synonymous with fascism .
If you do n't have the freedom to commit crimes , then you do n't have freedom .
We can up our prevention efforts to a certain degree , but we have to learn to live with the facts of life : sometimes people will be murdered , people will be injured , people will be raped , people will be robbed , and we can only act AFTER the fact of so many of these nasties .
They can NEVER be prevented 100 \ % , but so many folk these days seem to think that 's actually a desirable outcome , and we end up with even more ridiculous laws and scenarios as the article describes.Calm down , get a clue , and realize that it 's a dangerous , dirty world out there , but there 's so much MORE beauty and joy and happiness to be had by everyone if you 'd spend a little less time worrying and freaking out whenever anything bad actually does happen .
You 're missing out on life , by focussing on death and damage and disease .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I *AM* a weird uncle, you insensitive clod !And, no, I am NOT a pedophile, nor a pederast, nor a sex criminal of any flavor.whatsoever.I hear so much about how it's UNCLES that do all the damage, and you drop me in that same "suspicious" bucket because my brother and sister have female offspring.
You know what, go to hell yourself.
When I am no longer permitted to play frisbee with my nieces or nephews and their teenage friends of both sexes because you told a congress critter to concentrate on uncles, I hope you're proud of yourself for dismantling intergenerational contact, one of the few remaining opportunities that WEIRD adults like myself get to listen to kids and just maybe pass on a little friendly advice from experience.
I know you mean well, but you're just transferring the FUD to another inappropriate target, and you honestly expect a congressman to differentiate and make a sensible decision based on your advising them to "look up weird uncles first", a decision they clearly weren't capable of before being talked to?
Idiot.I know it's an ENORMOUSLY unpopular and politically incorrect thing to say, but unfortunately child sexual abuse, like any and all other crimes, are crimes of choice of the offender, and the only way to eliminate them completely is to eliminate ALL choice.
That's never going to happen, and it's synonymous with fascism.
If you don't have the freedom to commit crimes, then you don't have freedom.
We can up our prevention efforts to a certain degree, but we have to learn to live with the facts of life: sometimes people will be murdered, people will be injured, people will be raped, people will be robbed, and we can only act AFTER the fact of so many of these nasties.
They can NEVER be prevented 100\%, but so many folk these days seem to think that's actually a desirable outcome, and we end up with even more ridiculous laws and scenarios as the article describes.Calm down, get a clue, and realize that it's a dangerous, dirty world out there, but there's so much MORE beauty and joy and happiness to be had by everyone if you'd spend a little less time worrying and freaking out whenever anything bad actually does happen.
You're missing out on life, by focussing on death and damage and disease.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526732</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>schon</author>
	<datestamp>1268943600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>a lot of parents that don't want naked pictures of their perfect child floating around the school and would like to use rule of law to discourage "sexting."</p></div><p>So the solution is to <b>have their own children branded as sex offenders after they've committed the act</b>?!?!?!</p><p>Yeah, you've thought that out well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>a lot of parents that do n't want naked pictures of their perfect child floating around the school and would like to use rule of law to discourage " sexting .
" So the solution is to have their own children branded as sex offenders after they 've committed the act ? ! ? ! ?
! Yeah , you 've thought that out well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a lot of parents that don't want naked pictures of their perfect child floating around the school and would like to use rule of law to discourage "sexting.
"So the solution is to have their own children branded as sex offenders after they've committed the act?!?!?
!Yeah, you've thought that out well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31528648</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268905980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Actually, if you want your daughter to pregnant or start having regular abortions at age 9 or whatever, great. I don't want my daughters to be fucked by any old dude with a penis, requiring her to get HPV vaccines and take hormone pills during the time of her puberty and maturation.</p></div></blockquote><p>Straw man arguments are lies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , if you want your daughter to pregnant or start having regular abortions at age 9 or whatever , great .
I do n't want my daughters to be fucked by any old dude with a penis , requiring her to get HPV vaccines and take hormone pills during the time of her puberty and maturation.Straw man arguments are lies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, if you want your daughter to pregnant or start having regular abortions at age 9 or whatever, great.
I don't want my daughters to be fucked by any old dude with a penis, requiring her to get HPV vaccines and take hormone pills during the time of her puberty and maturation.Straw man arguments are lies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31527136</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>HungryHobo</author>
	<datestamp>1268944680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there's nothing wrong with providing strong leadership and nurturing.</p><p>The only sexist part comes when you assume that women can't provide strong leadership or that men can't provide nurturing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there 's nothing wrong with providing strong leadership and nurturing.The only sexist part comes when you assume that women ca n't provide strong leadership or that men ca n't provide nurturing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there's nothing wrong with providing strong leadership and nurturing.The only sexist part comes when you assume that women can't provide strong leadership or that men can't provide nurturing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525486</id>
	<title>IANAL, but</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1268939520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would likely depend on how these pics were found. If they were found on a phone confiscated at school, where's the search warrant?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would likely depend on how these pics were found .
If they were found on a phone confiscated at school , where 's the search warrant ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would likely depend on how these pics were found.
If they were found on a phone confiscated at school, where's the search warrant?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31534446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31527874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31532194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31527178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31536072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31528658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31527256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31527290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31527136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31527694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31529514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31532278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31533590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31527034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31547670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31528838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31529280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31528046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31530268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31527552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31528268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31547704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31530420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31528774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31533008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31530712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31533986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31530732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31533978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31527656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31528648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1735207_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1735207.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525458
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525572
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525934
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525888
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31528658
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31536072
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525632
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525986
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525736
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526170
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31528648
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526602
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31528774
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526702
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31528268
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31533008
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31527656
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31527874
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31534446
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31529280
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31530732
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31533986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525414
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525496
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31547704
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526884
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526942
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31530712
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31530420
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525444
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526732
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31532278
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31527694
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31527178
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525540
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526656
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31529514
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31527136
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526074
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31532194
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31528838
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525820
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1735207.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526032
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1735207.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31527552
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1735207.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31530268
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1735207.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1735207.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525914
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1735207.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525794
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1735207.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31527034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31527256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31527290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526434
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1735207.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31528046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31533590
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1735207.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31533978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31547670
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1735207.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31525828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1735207.31526748
</commentlist>
</conversation>
