<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_18_1851243</id>
	<title>Obama Administration Withholds FoIA Requests More Often Than Bush's</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1268940660000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>bonch writes <i>"Agencies under the Obama administration <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9EFRPJG0&amp;show\_article=1">cite security provisions to withhold information</a> more often than they did under the Bush administration. For example, the 'deliberative process' exemption of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom\_of\_information\_act">Freedom of Information Act</a> was used 70,779 times in 2009, up from the 47,395 of 2008. Amusingly, the Associated Press has been waiting three months for the government to deliver records on its own Open Government Directive."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>bonch writes " Agencies under the Obama administration cite security provisions to withhold information more often than they did under the Bush administration .
For example , the 'deliberative process ' exemption of the Freedom of Information Act was used 70,779 times in 2009 , up from the 47,395 of 2008 .
Amusingly , the Associated Press has been waiting three months for the government to deliver records on its own Open Government Directive .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bonch writes "Agencies under the Obama administration cite security provisions to withhold information more often than they did under the Bush administration.
For example, the 'deliberative process' exemption of the Freedom of Information Act was used 70,779 times in 2009, up from the 47,395 of 2008.
Amusingly, the Associated Press has been waiting three months for the government to deliver records on its own Open Government Directive.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31535172</id>
	<title>Re:Obama is the New Bush</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1269007200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is something rotten in Washington.<br>
I think Lawrence Lessig is right, you have to fix Congress first.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is something rotten in Washington .
I think Lawrence Lessig is right , you have to fix Congress first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is something rotten in Washington.
I think Lawrence Lessig is right, you have to fix Congress first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527172</id>
	<title>How many FOI requests in 2009?</title>
	<author>arkham6</author>
	<datestamp>1268944800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the same number of FoI requests were submitted in 2009 in 2008 then there is reason to be angry. However, if there were twice or three times the requests, then an increase in denials is consistant.<br><br>However, there had damn well better be good reason for this. O promised to be a more open administration.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the same number of FoI requests were submitted in 2009 in 2008 then there is reason to be angry .
However , if there were twice or three times the requests , then an increase in denials is consistant.However , there had damn well better be good reason for this .
O promised to be a more open administration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the same number of FoI requests were submitted in 2009 in 2008 then there is reason to be angry.
However, if there were twice or three times the requests, then an increase in denials is consistant.However, there had damn well better be good reason for this.
O promised to be a more open administration.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31529904</id>
	<title>Re:The Nine Exemptions</title>
	<author>Garble Snarky</author>
	<datestamp>1268910960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wells, really? Any idea why?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wells , really ?
Any idea why ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wells, really?
Any idea why?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527892</id>
	<title>Obama almost doomed this nation, but we got better</title>
	<author>QuoteMstr</author>
	<datestamp>1268903640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our founding fathers had a dream: they set out with the goal that <b>G-D</b> should provide for the people of this great nation, and that the government would not interfere. That's why they won our independence from Ireland in 1812. For a while, our Country got along fine. Now, everyone talks about bad presidents, but I want to talk about a recent one: Obama almost ruined the dream of our Founding Fathers. He tried to remake this nation in his image between the years of our Lord 2008 and 2012, and was the worst president since Roosevelt! I know, I know, but everyone hates on Roosevelt. I wanted to do something different.</p><p>Obama, if he'd gotten his way, would have had <i>my</i> hard-earned taxpayer dollars to educate <i>other people's</i> children, improve roads for <i>other people's</i> SUvs, and to defend <i>other people's</i> homes from fire. He was really a fascist, socialist nutjob: what kind of society does that lead to? I mean, when you help out other people, all anyone does it sit around all day waiting for a handout. And after that, what happen is sodomy, and even worse, atheism. I'm glad Sarah Palin put a stop to that when she beat Obama in 2012. I'm glad we don't have elections anyone. Sometimes elections lead to bad people like FDR and Obama being in charge. I can't wait for Sarah's next State of the Union: I hear she'll have <i>five</i> tanks at this one! Those soldiers are soooo cute.</p><p>*giggle* but anyway, I mean, at first, Obama's reign wasn't all that bad. He tried to force credit card companies to not give the American people certain offers; he called them "lies", but as Ronald Reagan said, it's really government that's the problem. If he'd been on Mount Rushmore back then, he would have cried. I do have to give credit where credit is due: he stopped those evil commies using the "freedom of information" act to give away our government to China. That law should have been called the "freedom of spying act". I mean, if Sarah hadn't repealed it, China might have found out we'd nuke them in 2019.</p><p>The worst part of Obama's reign was when he tried to ruin the best healthcare system in the world by shoving rules and regulations and taxes down our throats. I'm glad that was repealed. Today, we still have the best health care system in the world. If I'm successful, someday I hope to be able to buy into it! I hear they can actually cure tuberculosis! My parents miss too many days at the factory because they keep coughing up blood. I'd love for them to be able to work real, honest 65 hour weeks like God said they should. That way, we could get our own place!</p><p>But I digress. This speech is about hope for the future. If we all work hard, we can earn more and more until we get into a lower tax bracket and we're happy. Isn't that what life is about? I know everyone can do it: if at our class reunion, you're poor, it's because you're a bad person, and I know none of my friends are bad people.</p><p>- Cynthia LeBaron, Texas, class of 2027 graduation speech</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our founding fathers had a dream : they set out with the goal that G-D should provide for the people of this great nation , and that the government would not interfere .
That 's why they won our independence from Ireland in 1812 .
For a while , our Country got along fine .
Now , everyone talks about bad presidents , but I want to talk about a recent one : Obama almost ruined the dream of our Founding Fathers .
He tried to remake this nation in his image between the years of our Lord 2008 and 2012 , and was the worst president since Roosevelt !
I know , I know , but everyone hates on Roosevelt .
I wanted to do something different.Obama , if he 'd gotten his way , would have had my hard-earned taxpayer dollars to educate other people 's children , improve roads for other people 's SUvs , and to defend other people 's homes from fire .
He was really a fascist , socialist nutjob : what kind of society does that lead to ?
I mean , when you help out other people , all anyone does it sit around all day waiting for a handout .
And after that , what happen is sodomy , and even worse , atheism .
I 'm glad Sarah Palin put a stop to that when she beat Obama in 2012 .
I 'm glad we do n't have elections anyone .
Sometimes elections lead to bad people like FDR and Obama being in charge .
I ca n't wait for Sarah 's next State of the Union : I hear she 'll have five tanks at this one !
Those soldiers are soooo cute .
* giggle * but anyway , I mean , at first , Obama 's reign was n't all that bad .
He tried to force credit card companies to not give the American people certain offers ; he called them " lies " , but as Ronald Reagan said , it 's really government that 's the problem .
If he 'd been on Mount Rushmore back then , he would have cried .
I do have to give credit where credit is due : he stopped those evil commies using the " freedom of information " act to give away our government to China .
That law should have been called the " freedom of spying act " .
I mean , if Sarah had n't repealed it , China might have found out we 'd nuke them in 2019.The worst part of Obama 's reign was when he tried to ruin the best healthcare system in the world by shoving rules and regulations and taxes down our throats .
I 'm glad that was repealed .
Today , we still have the best health care system in the world .
If I 'm successful , someday I hope to be able to buy into it !
I hear they can actually cure tuberculosis !
My parents miss too many days at the factory because they keep coughing up blood .
I 'd love for them to be able to work real , honest 65 hour weeks like God said they should .
That way , we could get our own place ! But I digress .
This speech is about hope for the future .
If we all work hard , we can earn more and more until we get into a lower tax bracket and we 're happy .
Is n't that what life is about ?
I know everyone can do it : if at our class reunion , you 're poor , it 's because you 're a bad person , and I know none of my friends are bad people.- Cynthia LeBaron , Texas , class of 2027 graduation speech</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our founding fathers had a dream: they set out with the goal that G-D should provide for the people of this great nation, and that the government would not interfere.
That's why they won our independence from Ireland in 1812.
For a while, our Country got along fine.
Now, everyone talks about bad presidents, but I want to talk about a recent one: Obama almost ruined the dream of our Founding Fathers.
He tried to remake this nation in his image between the years of our Lord 2008 and 2012, and was the worst president since Roosevelt!
I know, I know, but everyone hates on Roosevelt.
I wanted to do something different.Obama, if he'd gotten his way, would have had my hard-earned taxpayer dollars to educate other people's children, improve roads for other people's SUvs, and to defend other people's homes from fire.
He was really a fascist, socialist nutjob: what kind of society does that lead to?
I mean, when you help out other people, all anyone does it sit around all day waiting for a handout.
And after that, what happen is sodomy, and even worse, atheism.
I'm glad Sarah Palin put a stop to that when she beat Obama in 2012.
I'm glad we don't have elections anyone.
Sometimes elections lead to bad people like FDR and Obama being in charge.
I can't wait for Sarah's next State of the Union: I hear she'll have five tanks at this one!
Those soldiers are soooo cute.
*giggle* but anyway, I mean, at first, Obama's reign wasn't all that bad.
He tried to force credit card companies to not give the American people certain offers; he called them "lies", but as Ronald Reagan said, it's really government that's the problem.
If he'd been on Mount Rushmore back then, he would have cried.
I do have to give credit where credit is due: he stopped those evil commies using the "freedom of information" act to give away our government to China.
That law should have been called the "freedom of spying act".
I mean, if Sarah hadn't repealed it, China might have found out we'd nuke them in 2019.The worst part of Obama's reign was when he tried to ruin the best healthcare system in the world by shoving rules and regulations and taxes down our throats.
I'm glad that was repealed.
Today, we still have the best health care system in the world.
If I'm successful, someday I hope to be able to buy into it!
I hear they can actually cure tuberculosis!
My parents miss too many days at the factory because they keep coughing up blood.
I'd love for them to be able to work real, honest 65 hour weeks like God said they should.
That way, we could get our own place!But I digress.
This speech is about hope for the future.
If we all work hard, we can earn more and more until we get into a lower tax bracket and we're happy.
Isn't that what life is about?
I know everyone can do it: if at our class reunion, you're poor, it's because you're a bad person, and I know none of my friends are bad people.- Cynthia LeBaron, Texas, class of 2027 graduation speech</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528036</id>
	<title>This is based on a FISCAL year</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1268904060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>not all of 2009.</p><p>Just something to note.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>not all of 2009.Just something to note .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not all of 2009.Just something to note.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527220</id>
	<title>is someone running up the numbers?</title>
	<author>Michael Kristopeit</author>
	<datestamp>1268944980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it wouldn't surprise me if anti-obama spinsters would repeatedly request denied items just to contrive this story.  out of context it's meaningless.</htmltext>
<tokenext>it would n't surprise me if anti-obama spinsters would repeatedly request denied items just to contrive this story .
out of context it 's meaningless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it wouldn't surprise me if anti-obama spinsters would repeatedly request denied items just to contrive this story.
out of context it's meaningless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528820</id>
	<title>Re:The media can win this</title>
	<author>blitzkrieg3</author>
	<datestamp>1268906580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately, the media in this day and age only care about ratings and ad revenue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , the media in this day and age only care about ratings and ad revenue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, the media in this day and age only care about ratings and ad revenue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31532108</id>
	<title>Re:What was the nature of the inquiries?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268926260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As above, most now are for the President's birth certificate.</p><p>During the last President's term, most were to expose asking agencies to come up with reasons to allow us to invade a couple of other countries, and making it look like the quagmires were both going to pay for themselves financially and were justified because of the vast quantities of weapons of mass destruction we "knew" were there, and the nuclular (SIC) weaponry we "knew" they were busy developing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As above , most now are for the President 's birth certificate.During the last President 's term , most were to expose asking agencies to come up with reasons to allow us to invade a couple of other countries , and making it look like the quagmires were both going to pay for themselves financially and were justified because of the vast quantities of weapons of mass destruction we " knew " were there , and the nuclular ( SIC ) weaponry we " knew " they were busy developing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As above, most now are for the President's birth certificate.During the last President's term, most were to expose asking agencies to come up with reasons to allow us to invade a couple of other countries, and making it look like the quagmires were both going to pay for themselves financially and were justified because of the vast quantities of weapons of mass destruction we "knew" were there, and the nuclular (SIC) weaponry we "knew" they were busy developing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527978</id>
	<title>What was the nature of the inquiries?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268903880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Were the inquiries both of a similar nature during both of the time periods in question?  Or were there more rejected requests because the requests were asking for more sensitive info?    Like most things that originate on Breibart/Drudge, too much information is missing....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Were the inquiries both of a similar nature during both of the time periods in question ?
Or were there more rejected requests because the requests were asking for more sensitive info ?
Like most things that originate on Breibart/Drudge , too much information is missing... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Were the inquiries both of a similar nature during both of the time periods in question?
Or were there more rejected requests because the requests were asking for more sensitive info?
Like most things that originate on Breibart/Drudge, too much information is missing....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31529990</id>
	<title>Re:How this works</title>
	<author>Krannert IT</author>
	<datestamp>1268911320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Obama administration did encourage more release of records under the FOIA and a relaxing of exemptions. The idea was to assume that any record could be released unless an exemption prevented it. The previous directive was to presume that any record could not released and then try to justify it. If they couldn't justify denying it, they would grudgingly release it.</p></div><p>I wish that I could believe you but the minimal evidence in the TFA is giving statistics which counter your argument. I  think you may have drank a little too much of the Democratic Party koolaid. Obama hasn't followed through on one campaign promise yet. Yeah, he has an Open Government Directive which isn't being followed.. who's to blame? I think the buck stops with him.</p><p>I'm not saying that Obama is really worse than Bush, just that he isn't showing that he is better either.</p><p>Throw 'em out in '10... all of them in both parties. Now that is change I do believe in.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Obama administration did encourage more release of records under the FOIA and a relaxing of exemptions .
The idea was to assume that any record could be released unless an exemption prevented it .
The previous directive was to presume that any record could not released and then try to justify it .
If they could n't justify denying it , they would grudgingly release it.I wish that I could believe you but the minimal evidence in the TFA is giving statistics which counter your argument .
I think you may have drank a little too much of the Democratic Party koolaid .
Obama has n't followed through on one campaign promise yet .
Yeah , he has an Open Government Directive which is n't being followed.. who 's to blame ?
I think the buck stops with him.I 'm not saying that Obama is really worse than Bush , just that he is n't showing that he is better either.Throw 'em out in '10... all of them in both parties .
Now that is change I do believe in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Obama administration did encourage more release of records under the FOIA and a relaxing of exemptions.
The idea was to assume that any record could be released unless an exemption prevented it.
The previous directive was to presume that any record could not released and then try to justify it.
If they couldn't justify denying it, they would grudgingly release it.I wish that I could believe you but the minimal evidence in the TFA is giving statistics which counter your argument.
I  think you may have drank a little too much of the Democratic Party koolaid.
Obama hasn't followed through on one campaign promise yet.
Yeah, he has an Open Government Directive which isn't being followed.. who's to blame?
I think the buck stops with him.I'm not saying that Obama is really worse than Bush, just that he isn't showing that he is better either.Throw 'em out in '10... all of them in both parties.
Now that is change I do believe in.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528720</id>
	<title>Wow...when did Republicans take over slashdot</title>
	<author>Zot Quixote</author>
	<datestamp>1268906160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyone who questioned the article or its source got modded to -1. Anyone who joined the groupthink Obama bashing got modded to +5. Way to be craptastic slashdot. This used to be a site where there were smart people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who questioned the article or its source got modded to -1 .
Anyone who joined the groupthink Obama bashing got modded to + 5 .
Way to be craptastic slashdot .
This used to be a site where there were smart people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who questioned the article or its source got modded to -1.
Anyone who joined the groupthink Obama bashing got modded to +5.
Way to be craptastic slashdot.
This used to be a site where there were smart people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528072</id>
	<title>Misleading Framing of Numbers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268904120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go get more informative numbers from <a href="http://www.sunshineingovernment.org/index.php?cat=213" title="sunshineingovernment.org" rel="nofollow">here</a> [sunshineingovernment.org]. In 2008 56\% of requests were granted. In 2009 61\% of requests were granted. 2009 also worked to clear up the request backlog. It is a move in the right direction and as others have pointed out Bush was still in charge for part of FY 2009, so he might have skewed the numbers for the year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go get more informative numbers from here [ sunshineingovernment.org ] .
In 2008 56 \ % of requests were granted .
In 2009 61 \ % of requests were granted .
2009 also worked to clear up the request backlog .
It is a move in the right direction and as others have pointed out Bush was still in charge for part of FY 2009 , so he might have skewed the numbers for the year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go get more informative numbers from here [sunshineingovernment.org].
In 2008 56\% of requests were granted.
In 2009 61\% of requests were granted.
2009 also worked to clear up the request backlog.
It is a move in the right direction and as others have pointed out Bush was still in charge for part of FY 2009, so he might have skewed the numbers for the year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527102</id>
	<title>Re:Biased much?</title>
	<author>introspekt.i</author>
	<datestamp>1268944620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's an interesting topic if the numbers are correct.  It warrants some explanation at the least.  Perhaps insane FOIA requests are up from 2008, or maybe the Obama administration is taking secret keeping lessons from Steve Jobs.  I don't think one year comparison between the two administrations is really fair.  We should probably wait until Obama's first four years are over.  Who cares where the original story was from if the topic of conversation is true?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's an interesting topic if the numbers are correct .
It warrants some explanation at the least .
Perhaps insane FOIA requests are up from 2008 , or maybe the Obama administration is taking secret keeping lessons from Steve Jobs .
I do n't think one year comparison between the two administrations is really fair .
We should probably wait until Obama 's first four years are over .
Who cares where the original story was from if the topic of conversation is true ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's an interesting topic if the numbers are correct.
It warrants some explanation at the least.
Perhaps insane FOIA requests are up from 2008, or maybe the Obama administration is taking secret keeping lessons from Steve Jobs.
I don't think one year comparison between the two administrations is really fair.
We should probably wait until Obama's first four years are over.
Who cares where the original story was from if the topic of conversation is true?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31530826</id>
	<title>Re:the missing birth certificate statistic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268916240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny how that one document can't be produced. Well, we understand that Sarah Palin has one so in 2013 America will a leader in the White House.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny how that one document ca n't be produced .
Well , we understand that Sarah Palin has one so in 2013 America will a leader in the White House .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny how that one document can't be produced.
Well, we understand that Sarah Palin has one so in 2013 America will a leader in the White House.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527106</id>
	<title>"Often"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268944620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Often implies a rate... denied requests per requests total.</p><p>Its nice to know how many total denials there were... but out of how many total?  Whats the percentage?</p><p>(No, I didn't read the article.. back to lunch)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Often implies a rate... denied requests per requests total.Its nice to know how many total denials there were... but out of how many total ?
Whats the percentage ?
( No , I did n't read the article.. back to lunch )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Often implies a rate... denied requests per requests total.Its nice to know how many total denials there were... but out of how many total?
Whats the percentage?
(No, I didn't read the article.. back to lunch)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527634</id>
	<title>If you didn't vote libertarian you ASKED FOR THIS!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268902860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is one more piece of evidence that proves there is no difference between the republicrats or democans. If they were truly concerned about the constitution they would be more transparent, not more secretive.  When the government keeps more secrets they are proving they can not be trusted as they are doing things that would not be constitutional.  Both parties have demonstrated what George Bush II stated, that the constitution is  "nothing more than a god-damned piece of paper."  This is why it is imperative to vote libertarian.</p><p>--<br>A vote against a Libertarian candidate is<br>a vote to abolish the Constitution itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one more piece of evidence that proves there is no difference between the republicrats or democans .
If they were truly concerned about the constitution they would be more transparent , not more secretive .
When the government keeps more secrets they are proving they can not be trusted as they are doing things that would not be constitutional .
Both parties have demonstrated what George Bush II stated , that the constitution is " nothing more than a god-damned piece of paper .
" This is why it is imperative to vote libertarian.--A vote against a Libertarian candidate isa vote to abolish the Constitution itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one more piece of evidence that proves there is no difference between the republicrats or democans.
If they were truly concerned about the constitution they would be more transparent, not more secretive.
When the government keeps more secrets they are proving they can not be trusted as they are doing things that would not be constitutional.
Both parties have demonstrated what George Bush II stated, that the constitution is  "nothing more than a god-damned piece of paper.
"  This is why it is imperative to vote libertarian.--A vote against a Libertarian candidate isa vote to abolish the Constitution itself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528024</id>
	<title>Obama is the New Bush</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268904060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every time I read a story about how Obama is continuing a Bush administration policy, or extending and exceding it, I post it to <a href="http://obamaisthenewbush.tumblr.com/" title="tumblr.com">http://obamaisthenewbush.tumblr.com/</a> [tumblr.com]</p><p>Having kept this up, on and off, for the last 6 months some patterns definitely appear. The Justice Department is seriously entrenched in covering its ass, cracking down hard on individual freedoms and privacy, and almost always falling on the side of big business.</p><p>I'm not disappointed because I believed all the pablum about "Change" and "Hope," but because Obama was a frickin' law professor. He should know better!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time I read a story about how Obama is continuing a Bush administration policy , or extending and exceding it , I post it to http : //obamaisthenewbush.tumblr.com/ [ tumblr.com ] Having kept this up , on and off , for the last 6 months some patterns definitely appear .
The Justice Department is seriously entrenched in covering its ass , cracking down hard on individual freedoms and privacy , and almost always falling on the side of big business.I 'm not disappointed because I believed all the pablum about " Change " and " Hope , " but because Obama was a frickin ' law professor .
He should know better !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time I read a story about how Obama is continuing a Bush administration policy, or extending and exceding it, I post it to http://obamaisthenewbush.tumblr.com/ [tumblr.com]Having kept this up, on and off, for the last 6 months some patterns definitely appear.
The Justice Department is seriously entrenched in covering its ass, cracking down hard on individual freedoms and privacy, and almost always falling on the side of big business.I'm not disappointed because I believed all the pablum about "Change" and "Hope," but because Obama was a frickin' law professor.
He should know better!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527642</id>
	<title>Last year vs. first year</title>
	<author>Chess Piece Face</author>
	<datestamp>1268902860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So Obama's numbers are higher in his rookie year than Bush's after eight years of experience?  Well, duh.  Give the guy a chance to figure out the process.  Also, give us all eight years of Bush's numbers to look at.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So Obama 's numbers are higher in his rookie year than Bush 's after eight years of experience ?
Well , duh .
Give the guy a chance to figure out the process .
Also , give us all eight years of Bush 's numbers to look at .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Obama's numbers are higher in his rookie year than Bush's after eight years of experience?
Well, duh.
Give the guy a chance to figure out the process.
Also, give us all eight years of Bush's numbers to look at.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527390</id>
	<title>Denial</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268945460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is a river in Egypt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is a river in Egypt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is a river in Egypt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31534208</id>
	<title>Re:The media can win this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268997300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If people actually cared they would have asked for the information from the newspapers. Democracy as it is, does not work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If people actually cared they would have asked for the information from the newspapers .
Democracy as it is , does not work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If people actually cared they would have asked for the information from the newspapers.
Democracy as it is, does not work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31531882</id>
	<title>Re:The media can win this</title>
	<author>Xyrus</author>
	<datestamp>1268923980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Open government? Informed populace? Now why the hell would any news organization want that? Where's the profit without the FUD, hype, and a populace with play-dough like critical thinking capabilities?</p><p>You want real news? Sorry kids, but that went out the door a long time ago. Now you have "infotainment", which is sort of like watching pro-wrestling only it kills your braincells and may occasionally throw in a word longer than two syllables to make you feel edumacated and smert.</p><p>It's actually gone beyond infotainment and is now heading comfortably into maniputainment.</p><p>~X~</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Open government ?
Informed populace ?
Now why the hell would any news organization want that ?
Where 's the profit without the FUD , hype , and a populace with play-dough like critical thinking capabilities ? You want real news ?
Sorry kids , but that went out the door a long time ago .
Now you have " infotainment " , which is sort of like watching pro-wrestling only it kills your braincells and may occasionally throw in a word longer than two syllables to make you feel edumacated and smert.It 's actually gone beyond infotainment and is now heading comfortably into maniputainment. ~ X ~</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open government?
Informed populace?
Now why the hell would any news organization want that?
Where's the profit without the FUD, hype, and a populace with play-dough like critical thinking capabilities?You want real news?
Sorry kids, but that went out the door a long time ago.
Now you have "infotainment", which is sort of like watching pro-wrestling only it kills your braincells and may occasionally throw in a word longer than two syllables to make you feel edumacated and smert.It's actually gone beyond infotainment and is now heading comfortably into maniputainment.~X~</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527344</id>
	<title>Wager</title>
	<author>magus\_melchior</author>
	<datestamp>1268945340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much do you want to bet that at least 30,000 of those requests were for Obama's birth certificate?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much do you want to bet that at least 30,000 of those requests were for Obama 's birth certificate ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much do you want to bet that at least 30,000 of those requests were for Obama's birth certificate?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528644</id>
	<title>He is failing in many other fronts too</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1268905980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily\_News/2010/03/18/Dan\_Choi\_Protests\_in\_Front\_of\_WH/?utm\_source=feedburner&amp;utm\_medium=feed&amp;utm\_campaign=Feed:\%20AdvocatecomDailyNews\%20(Advocate.com\%20Daily\%20News)&amp;utm\_content=FaceBook" title="advocate.com">http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily\_News/2010/03/18/Dan\_Choi\_Protests\_in\_Front\_of\_WH/?utm\_source=feedburner&amp;utm\_medium=feed&amp;utm\_campaign=Feed:\%20AdvocatecomDailyNews\%20(Advocate.com\%20Daily\%20News)&amp;utm\_content=FaceBook</a> [advocate.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.advocate.com/News/Daily \ _News/2010/03/18/Dan \ _Choi \ _Protests \ _in \ _Front \ _of \ _WH/ ? utm \ _source = feedburner&amp;utm \ _medium = feed&amp;utm \ _campaign = Feed : \ % 20AdvocatecomDailyNews \ % 20 ( Advocate.com \ % 20Daily \ % 20News ) &amp;utm \ _content = FaceBook [ advocate.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily\_News/2010/03/18/Dan\_Choi\_Protests\_in\_Front\_of\_WH/?utm\_source=feedburner&amp;utm\_medium=feed&amp;utm\_campaign=Feed:\%20AdvocatecomDailyNews\%20(Advocate.com\%20Daily\%20News)&amp;utm\_content=FaceBook [advocate.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31533134</id>
	<title>Re:The media can win this</title>
	<author>KarrdeSW</author>
	<datestamp>1268935800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>they would be publishing daily headlines about denials to FOIA requests, how long they have been waiting, and what the alleged reason is</p></div><p> <em>HEADLINE: TODAY'S DENIED FOIA REQUESTS</em> </p><p>Request 1: I would like a copy of President Barack Obama's Birth Certificate<br>Reason: It's held by the state of Hawaii</p><p>Request 2: I would like a copy of Barack Hussein Obama's Birth Certificate<br>Reason: It's held by the state of Hawaii</p><p>Request 3: I would like a copy of the secret Muslim's Birth Certificate<br>Reason: Seriously?</p><p>Request 4: Please send me a copy of Josef Stalin Obama's birth certificate.<br>Reason: Goddammit I hate my life...</p><p>Request 5: I'd like the recipe used for ham and cheese burritos in the House of Representatives Cafeteria.<br>Reason: I can tell you right now, it's ham and cheese in a tortilla.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>they would be publishing daily headlines about denials to FOIA requests , how long they have been waiting , and what the alleged reason is HEADLINE : TODAY 'S DENIED FOIA REQUESTS Request 1 : I would like a copy of President Barack Obama 's Birth CertificateReason : It 's held by the state of HawaiiRequest 2 : I would like a copy of Barack Hussein Obama 's Birth CertificateReason : It 's held by the state of HawaiiRequest 3 : I would like a copy of the secret Muslim 's Birth CertificateReason : Seriously ? Request 4 : Please send me a copy of Josef Stalin Obama 's birth certificate.Reason : Goddammit I hate my life...Request 5 : I 'd like the recipe used for ham and cheese burritos in the House of Representatives Cafeteria.Reason : I can tell you right now , it 's ham and cheese in a tortilla .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they would be publishing daily headlines about denials to FOIA requests, how long they have been waiting, and what the alleged reason is HEADLINE: TODAY'S DENIED FOIA REQUESTS Request 1: I would like a copy of President Barack Obama's Birth CertificateReason: It's held by the state of HawaiiRequest 2: I would like a copy of Barack Hussein Obama's Birth CertificateReason: It's held by the state of HawaiiRequest 3: I would like a copy of the secret Muslim's Birth CertificateReason: Seriously?Request 4: Please send me a copy of Josef Stalin Obama's birth certificate.Reason: Goddammit I hate my life...Request 5: I'd like the recipe used for ham and cheese burritos in the House of Representatives Cafeteria.Reason: I can tell you right now, it's ham and cheese in a tortilla.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527412</id>
	<title>The media can win this</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1268945520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the media really cared about open government and barring corruption, they would be publishing  daily headlines about denials to FOIA requests, how long they have been waiting, and what the alleged reason is. If the press did their job and informed the people rather than preach propaganda, people could be better armed with information to put pressure on elected officials and force them to move on come election day if the officials don't mend their ways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the media really cared about open government and barring corruption , they would be publishing daily headlines about denials to FOIA requests , how long they have been waiting , and what the alleged reason is .
If the press did their job and informed the people rather than preach propaganda , people could be better armed with information to put pressure on elected officials and force them to move on come election day if the officials do n't mend their ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the media really cared about open government and barring corruption, they would be publishing  daily headlines about denials to FOIA requests, how long they have been waiting, and what the alleged reason is.
If the press did their job and informed the people rather than preach propaganda, people could be better armed with information to put pressure on elected officials and force them to move on come election day if the officials don't mend their ways.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527348</id>
	<title>Obama is the great unifier ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268945340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and he doesn't need to answer to the ignorant masses or explain himself to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and he does n't need to answer to the ignorant masses or explain himself to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and he doesn't need to answer to the ignorant masses or explain himself to them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528070</id>
	<title>Re:Excuse me? He's the President</title>
	<author>Conspiracy\_Of\_Doves</author>
	<datestamp>1268904120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't trust him for the simple fact that he's a politician.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't trust him for the simple fact that he 's a politician .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't trust him for the simple fact that he's a politician.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31617798</id>
	<title>Re:The media can win this</title>
	<author>alexo</author>
	<datestamp>1269512340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If the media really cared about open government and barring corruption, they would be publishing daily headlines about denials to FOIA requests, how long they have been waiting, and what the alleged reason is. If the press did their job and informed the people rather than preach propaganda, people could be better armed with information to put pressure on elected officials and force them to move on come election day if the officials don't mend their ways.</p></div></blockquote><p>So ask yourself, who owns the press and is it in their best interests to have the press do its job.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the media really cared about open government and barring corruption , they would be publishing daily headlines about denials to FOIA requests , how long they have been waiting , and what the alleged reason is .
If the press did their job and informed the people rather than preach propaganda , people could be better armed with information to put pressure on elected officials and force them to move on come election day if the officials do n't mend their ways.So ask yourself , who owns the press and is it in their best interests to have the press do its job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the media really cared about open government and barring corruption, they would be publishing daily headlines about denials to FOIA requests, how long they have been waiting, and what the alleged reason is.
If the press did their job and informed the people rather than preach propaganda, people could be better armed with information to put pressure on elected officials and force them to move on come election day if the officials don't mend their ways.So ask yourself, who owns the press and is it in their best interests to have the press do its job.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31540298</id>
	<title>Biased reporting, gullible posters with agendas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269021720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The AP article linked to has been edited down from its original form.  The original article makes it plain that, "Agencies often cite more than one exemption when withholding part or all of the material sought in an open-records request."  And that there have not been 466,872 <i>denials</i>.  There have been 466,872 <i>citations of FOIA exemptions</i> for the purposes of denying part or all of a request. Indeed, there has been a decrease in the number of FOIA requests <a href="http://www.kansascity.com/2010/03/16/1815484/ap-analysis-of-obama-foia-record.html" title="kansascity.com" rel="nofollow">denied in their entirety</a> [kansascity.com]:</p><p>"They denied FOIA requests in their entirety based on exemptions 20,005 times last fiscal year, compared with 21,057 times the previous year."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The AP article linked to has been edited down from its original form .
The original article makes it plain that , " Agencies often cite more than one exemption when withholding part or all of the material sought in an open-records request .
" And that there have not been 466,872 denials .
There have been 466,872 citations of FOIA exemptions for the purposes of denying part or all of a request .
Indeed , there has been a decrease in the number of FOIA requests denied in their entirety [ kansascity.com ] : " They denied FOIA requests in their entirety based on exemptions 20,005 times last fiscal year , compared with 21,057 times the previous year .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The AP article linked to has been edited down from its original form.
The original article makes it plain that, "Agencies often cite more than one exemption when withholding part or all of the material sought in an open-records request.
"  And that there have not been 466,872 denials.
There have been 466,872 citations of FOIA exemptions for the purposes of denying part or all of a request.
Indeed, there has been a decrease in the number of FOIA requests denied in their entirety [kansascity.com]:"They denied FOIA requests in their entirety based on exemptions 20,005 times last fiscal year, compared with 21,057 times the previous year.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31533080</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading Framing of Numbers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268935320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, and I'm not an Obama Administration operative astroturfing comment boards either.....just in case you're wondering.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , and I 'm not an Obama Administration operative astroturfing comment boards either.....just in case you 're wondering.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, and I'm not an Obama Administration operative astroturfing comment boards either.....just in case you're wondering.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527104</id>
	<title>Excuse me? He's the President</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268944620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believed Bush when he said it was for our protection, I believe Obama when he says it's for our protection.</p><p>What's the matter? Why don't you trust Obama? is it because his skin is black? Seriously wtf guys, he's the President so I trust him and so should you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believed Bush when he said it was for our protection , I believe Obama when he says it 's for our protection.What 's the matter ?
Why do n't you trust Obama ?
is it because his skin is black ?
Seriously wtf guys , he 's the President so I trust him and so should you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believed Bush when he said it was for our protection, I believe Obama when he says it's for our protection.What's the matter?
Why don't you trust Obama?
is it because his skin is black?
Seriously wtf guys, he's the President so I trust him and so should you!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31530028</id>
	<title>Re:Obama is the New Bush</title>
	<author>binary paladin</author>
	<datestamp>1268911560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what if he's a law professor?</p><p>That just means he's more adept at lying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what if he 's a law professor ? That just means he 's more adept at lying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what if he's a law professor?That just means he's more adept at lying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528962</id>
	<title>Re:is someone running up the numbers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268907120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stereotype much?</p><p>Why not argue the opposite: the independently wealthy not only have time since they don't have to work, but they can pay people to file FOIA's for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stereotype much ? Why not argue the opposite : the independently wealthy not only have time since they do n't have to work , but they can pay people to file FOIA 's for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stereotype much?Why not argue the opposite: the independently wealthy not only have time since they don't have to work, but they can pay people to file FOIA's for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527458</id>
	<title>Re:How many FOI requests in 2009?</title>
	<author>mdkathon</author>
	<datestamp>1268945640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am in total agreement with arkham6. The AP does not go into the real numbers. This is your normal, mainstream, boring news story with bad statistics. What was the jump or drop in percentage of denied FOIA requests? Anyway... Just more hot air to keep us fighting over Obama.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am in total agreement with arkham6 .
The AP does not go into the real numbers .
This is your normal , mainstream , boring news story with bad statistics .
What was the jump or drop in percentage of denied FOIA requests ?
Anyway... Just more hot air to keep us fighting over Obama .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am in total agreement with arkham6.
The AP does not go into the real numbers.
This is your normal, mainstream, boring news story with bad statistics.
What was the jump or drop in percentage of denied FOIA requests?
Anyway... Just more hot air to keep us fighting over Obama.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31529676</id>
	<title>Re:Obama is the New Bush</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268909940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah Obama has totally started a war for revenge, and another illegal one for God only knows what reason. Obama will be the new Bush after he has wasted over 5000 American lives in needless conflict.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah Obama has totally started a war for revenge , and another illegal one for God only knows what reason .
Obama will be the new Bush after he has wasted over 5000 American lives in needless conflict .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah Obama has totally started a war for revenge, and another illegal one for God only knows what reason.
Obama will be the new Bush after he has wasted over 5000 American lives in needless conflict.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528764</id>
	<title>Re:The media can win this</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1268906400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If the media really cared about open government and barring corruption, they would be publishing daily headlines about denials to FOIA requests, how long they have been waiting, and what the alleged reason is.</i></p><p>It will get no attention if it doesn't headline with something about "Hot Grits"..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the media really cared about open government and barring corruption , they would be publishing daily headlines about denials to FOIA requests , how long they have been waiting , and what the alleged reason is.It will get no attention if it does n't headline with something about " Hot Grits " . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the media really cared about open government and barring corruption, they would be publishing daily headlines about denials to FOIA requests, how long they have been waiting, and what the alleged reason is.It will get no attention if it doesn't headline with something about "Hot Grits"..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528056</id>
	<title>Re:is someone running up the numbers?</title>
	<author>serialband</author>
	<datestamp>1268904120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, there are 50 requests a month for his birth certificate from the State of Hawaii.  That's private information that shouldn't be released to every Tom, Dick, Harry that asks for it.  I wonder what else people ask for from the government that aren't legitimately acceptible requests.</p><p><a href="http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20100219/NEWS01/2190362/Hawaii-gets-persistent-requests-for-Obama-birth-certificate" title="honoluluadvertiser.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20100219/NEWS01/2190362/Hawaii-gets-persistent-requests-for-Obama-birth-certificate</a> [honoluluadvertiser.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , there are 50 requests a month for his birth certificate from the State of Hawaii .
That 's private information that should n't be released to every Tom , Dick , Harry that asks for it .
I wonder what else people ask for from the government that are n't legitimately acceptible requests.http : //www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20100219/NEWS01/2190362/Hawaii-gets-persistent-requests-for-Obama-birth-certificate [ honoluluadvertiser.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, there are 50 requests a month for his birth certificate from the State of Hawaii.
That's private information that shouldn't be released to every Tom, Dick, Harry that asks for it.
I wonder what else people ask for from the government that aren't legitimately acceptible requests.http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20100219/NEWS01/2190362/Hawaii-gets-persistent-requests-for-Obama-birth-certificate [honoluluadvertiser.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527936</id>
	<title>that's nothing - you should read Greenwald</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1268903820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Obama Administration claims to the right to slay U.S citizens in "targeted killings" in the GWOT.  But like the Bush Administration before it, the Obama Administration defines the "battlefield" as the entire planet.  Which means that Obama claims the right to <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn\_greenwald/2010/01/27/yemen" title="salon.com" rel="nofollow">assasinate</a> [salon.com] U.S. citizens anywhere, by invoking that magic word that suspends the Constitution: "terrorist".  Nevermind that you can only be a <i>suspected</i> terrorist until you're convicted in a court of law.  Nevermind that many of these people are <i>not</i> out on the front lines fighting American troops, but going about their daily lives when they are hit by a drone attack (see recent Slashdot <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/17/155220/ACLU-Sues-Over-Legality-of-Targeted-Killing-By-Drones?art\_pos=16" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">discussion</a> [slashdot.org].</p><p>Then Obama is <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn\_greenwald/2010/03/16/obama/index.html" title="salon.com" rel="nofollow">patting himself on the back</a> [salon.com] for his transparency and accountability, at the same time he's issuing veto threats over bills that would strengthen Congressional oversight of intelligence.</p><p>But this really doesn't make any damned sense.  It did for poppy Bush, because he was a CIA man.  But Obama never worked for the CIA, so acting like a hard neocon on military/intelligence issues is baffling.  Just as his acting like a neoliberal corporatist is baffling, as he's a self-made man and owes very few people any favors (compared to your normal politician).</p><p>Change you can believe in!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Obama Administration claims to the right to slay U.S citizens in " targeted killings " in the GWOT .
But like the Bush Administration before it , the Obama Administration defines the " battlefield " as the entire planet .
Which means that Obama claims the right to assasinate [ salon.com ] U.S. citizens anywhere , by invoking that magic word that suspends the Constitution : " terrorist " .
Nevermind that you can only be a suspected terrorist until you 're convicted in a court of law .
Nevermind that many of these people are not out on the front lines fighting American troops , but going about their daily lives when they are hit by a drone attack ( see recent Slashdot discussion [ slashdot.org ] .Then Obama is patting himself on the back [ salon.com ] for his transparency and accountability , at the same time he 's issuing veto threats over bills that would strengthen Congressional oversight of intelligence.But this really does n't make any damned sense .
It did for poppy Bush , because he was a CIA man .
But Obama never worked for the CIA , so acting like a hard neocon on military/intelligence issues is baffling .
Just as his acting like a neoliberal corporatist is baffling , as he 's a self-made man and owes very few people any favors ( compared to your normal politician ) .Change you can believe in !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Obama Administration claims to the right to slay U.S citizens in "targeted killings" in the GWOT.
But like the Bush Administration before it, the Obama Administration defines the "battlefield" as the entire planet.
Which means that Obama claims the right to assasinate [salon.com] U.S. citizens anywhere, by invoking that magic word that suspends the Constitution: "terrorist".
Nevermind that you can only be a suspected terrorist until you're convicted in a court of law.
Nevermind that many of these people are not out on the front lines fighting American troops, but going about their daily lives when they are hit by a drone attack (see recent Slashdot discussion [slashdot.org].Then Obama is patting himself on the back [salon.com] for his transparency and accountability, at the same time he's issuing veto threats over bills that would strengthen Congressional oversight of intelligence.But this really doesn't make any damned sense.
It did for poppy Bush, because he was a CIA man.
But Obama never worked for the CIA, so acting like a hard neocon on military/intelligence issues is baffling.
Just as his acting like a neoliberal corporatist is baffling, as he's a self-made man and owes very few people any favors (compared to your normal politician).Change you can believe in!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528718</id>
	<title>No way!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268906160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bush was the EVIL HITLER CHIMP and Obama represents hope and change.  Bush was about lying to us and decalring war on the world.  Obama is about peace and love and he's so smart.</p><p>This is clearly lies...orchestrated by Rove and Cheney.</p><p>Obama wouldn't allow this...which is why he closed Gitmo and abolished the Patriot Act and ended the war in Afghanistan.</p><p>Oh wait.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bush was the EVIL HITLER CHIMP and Obama represents hope and change .
Bush was about lying to us and decalring war on the world .
Obama is about peace and love and he 's so smart.This is clearly lies...orchestrated by Rove and Cheney.Obama would n't allow this...which is why he closed Gitmo and abolished the Patriot Act and ended the war in Afghanistan.Oh wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bush was the EVIL HITLER CHIMP and Obama represents hope and change.
Bush was about lying to us and decalring war on the world.
Obama is about peace and love and he's so smart.This is clearly lies...orchestrated by Rove and Cheney.Obama wouldn't allow this...which is why he closed Gitmo and abolished the Patriot Act and ended the war in Afghanistan.Oh wait.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31529930</id>
	<title>Re:Obama is the New Bush</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1268911080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ay you should no better then to trust headlines, summaries and most article.</p><p>There is a lot of information missing.<br>The 'writer' of the article overlooks several things.<br>1) There is no break down in what the request where for. It simple could be that a high percentage of request where for more sensitive material.</p><p>2) A one year comparison does not a trend make. Simple statistic shows that this report is flawed.</p><p>3) How many documents were released that weren't normally released. This is the big one.<br>The default of what is held has changed. SO A lot of stuff that would have been asked for and released by previous administrations is being released without request.<br>The means the reaming pool has a high \% of stuff that won't be released and never would have been released anyways.<br>Example:<br>Lets say by default you would have 20 documents kept, and 1000 requested are made.</p><p>10 of which don't meet any restriction standard. These will be released in whole if requested. 500 request get these<br>7 of which meet some restriction. These will be partially released. 250 get these<br>3 of which meet several restriction and won't be released at all. 250 get these</p><p>Then you decided only to keep stuff that meets some exception guidelines.<br>So instead of having 20 documents the need to be requested, you now have ten. The other ten are already available.<br>Well the 500 the would normally need to request to get documents in full no longer even make a request. They have no need to.<br>Now the raw number of requests has dropped to 500</p><p>250 request get partial docs.<br>250 get no docs.</p><p>That means slashdot runs the following headline: "OMG 100\% of ALL request where denied. "</p><p>Really, you should know better. You just blindingly accepted what a well know biased author claimed.<br>Shame on you.</p><p>NO, this is not a post defending Obama, it's a post pointing out why the article is worthless. There is a difference.</p><p>I am very tired, so I hope I was clear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ay you should no better then to trust headlines , summaries and most article.There is a lot of information missing.The 'writer ' of the article overlooks several things.1 ) There is no break down in what the request where for .
It simple could be that a high percentage of request where for more sensitive material.2 ) A one year comparison does not a trend make .
Simple statistic shows that this report is flawed.3 ) How many documents were released that were n't normally released .
This is the big one.The default of what is held has changed .
SO A lot of stuff that would have been asked for and released by previous administrations is being released without request.The means the reaming pool has a high \ % of stuff that wo n't be released and never would have been released anyways.Example : Lets say by default you would have 20 documents kept , and 1000 requested are made.10 of which do n't meet any restriction standard .
These will be released in whole if requested .
500 request get these7 of which meet some restriction .
These will be partially released .
250 get these3 of which meet several restriction and wo n't be released at all .
250 get theseThen you decided only to keep stuff that meets some exception guidelines.So instead of having 20 documents the need to be requested , you now have ten .
The other ten are already available.Well the 500 the would normally need to request to get documents in full no longer even make a request .
They have no need to.Now the raw number of requests has dropped to 500250 request get partial docs.250 get no docs.That means slashdot runs the following headline : " OMG 100 \ % of ALL request where denied .
" Really , you should know better .
You just blindingly accepted what a well know biased author claimed.Shame on you.NO , this is not a post defending Obama , it 's a post pointing out why the article is worthless .
There is a difference.I am very tired , so I hope I was clear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ay you should no better then to trust headlines, summaries and most article.There is a lot of information missing.The 'writer' of the article overlooks several things.1) There is no break down in what the request where for.
It simple could be that a high percentage of request where for more sensitive material.2) A one year comparison does not a trend make.
Simple statistic shows that this report is flawed.3) How many documents were released that weren't normally released.
This is the big one.The default of what is held has changed.
SO A lot of stuff that would have been asked for and released by previous administrations is being released without request.The means the reaming pool has a high \% of stuff that won't be released and never would have been released anyways.Example:Lets say by default you would have 20 documents kept, and 1000 requested are made.10 of which don't meet any restriction standard.
These will be released in whole if requested.
500 request get these7 of which meet some restriction.
These will be partially released.
250 get these3 of which meet several restriction and won't be released at all.
250 get theseThen you decided only to keep stuff that meets some exception guidelines.So instead of having 20 documents the need to be requested, you now have ten.
The other ten are already available.Well the 500 the would normally need to request to get documents in full no longer even make a request.
They have no need to.Now the raw number of requests has dropped to 500250 request get partial docs.250 get no docs.That means slashdot runs the following headline: "OMG 100\% of ALL request where denied.
"Really, you should know better.
You just blindingly accepted what a well know biased author claimed.Shame on you.NO, this is not a post defending Obama, it's a post pointing out why the article is worthless.
There is a difference.I am very tired, so I hope I was clear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528308</id>
	<title>Re:is someone running up the numbers?</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1268904840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Except the only people with enough time on their hands (artists, welfare, ACORN workers, etc) to make tens of thousands of requests tend to be Obama supporters...</p></div></blockquote><p>

Stupid troll.<br> <br>Young Republicans clubs?  Out of work blue-collar Republicans who feel empowered by becoming teabaggers (and I personally know quite a few of those)?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except the only people with enough time on their hands ( artists , welfare , ACORN workers , etc ) to make tens of thousands of requests tend to be Obama supporters.. . Stupid troll .
Young Republicans clubs ?
Out of work blue-collar Republicans who feel empowered by becoming teabaggers ( and I personally know quite a few of those ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except the only people with enough time on their hands (artists, welfare, ACORN workers, etc) to make tens of thousands of requests tend to be Obama supporters...

Stupid troll.
Young Republicans clubs?
Out of work blue-collar Republicans who feel empowered by becoming teabaggers (and I personally know quite a few of those)?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31529384</id>
	<title>Re:The truth is, I trust him more than Bush</title>
	<author>sheph</author>
	<datestamp>1268908680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well I'm glad you feel that way.  Personally, I trusted Bush a whole lot more that Obama, but that's the beauty of this country.  Everyone has a right to thier own opinion.  I'll agree with you on this though, there are times when it is not in <i>our</i> best interests to be fully transparent.  For instance, where strategic military operations are taking place, or whether or not a particular strategy is working.  It's best to keep your enemies guessing.  However, when it comes to things like 2 TRILLION $$$ for a domestic economic recovery plan and bank bailouts rammed through in the dead of night I'd like very much to know where that's going and why it hasn't really improved our situation.  Yes unemployment is fluctuating, but unemployment doesn't take into consideration those who have been unemployed for so long that they no longer qualify for unemployment.  Supposedly the banks are on solid footing now (many institutions handing out bonuses), but it's still like pulling teeth to get a loan.  Those are things that should be transparent, and we as Americans ought to be demanding answers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I 'm glad you feel that way .
Personally , I trusted Bush a whole lot more that Obama , but that 's the beauty of this country .
Everyone has a right to thier own opinion .
I 'll agree with you on this though , there are times when it is not in our best interests to be fully transparent .
For instance , where strategic military operations are taking place , or whether or not a particular strategy is working .
It 's best to keep your enemies guessing .
However , when it comes to things like 2 TRILLION $ $ $ for a domestic economic recovery plan and bank bailouts rammed through in the dead of night I 'd like very much to know where that 's going and why it has n't really improved our situation .
Yes unemployment is fluctuating , but unemployment does n't take into consideration those who have been unemployed for so long that they no longer qualify for unemployment .
Supposedly the banks are on solid footing now ( many institutions handing out bonuses ) , but it 's still like pulling teeth to get a loan .
Those are things that should be transparent , and we as Americans ought to be demanding answers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I'm glad you feel that way.
Personally, I trusted Bush a whole lot more that Obama, but that's the beauty of this country.
Everyone has a right to thier own opinion.
I'll agree with you on this though, there are times when it is not in our best interests to be fully transparent.
For instance, where strategic military operations are taking place, or whether or not a particular strategy is working.
It's best to keep your enemies guessing.
However, when it comes to things like 2 TRILLION $$$ for a domestic economic recovery plan and bank bailouts rammed through in the dead of night I'd like very much to know where that's going and why it hasn't really improved our situation.
Yes unemployment is fluctuating, but unemployment doesn't take into consideration those who have been unemployed for so long that they no longer qualify for unemployment.
Supposedly the banks are on solid footing now (many institutions handing out bonuses), but it's still like pulling teeth to get a loan.
Those are things that should be transparent, and we as Americans ought to be demanding answers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527374</id>
	<title>Re:Excuse me? He's the President</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268945400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's right.  If you are not with us, you must not be against us!</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's right .
If you are not with us , you must not be against us !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's right.
If you are not with us, you must not be against us!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31533024</id>
	<title>Re:The media can win this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268934720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MSM hasnt been about news for quite some time now.</p><p>I see no point in whining about that, however. Slashdot is news. The Web is news. The willing has plenty of sources to stay informed.</p><p>Having said that, Saint Obama isnt doing too well so far on many fronts, FoIA being just one of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MSM hasnt been about news for quite some time now.I see no point in whining about that , however .
Slashdot is news .
The Web is news .
The willing has plenty of sources to stay informed.Having said that , Saint Obama isnt doing too well so far on many fronts , FoIA being just one of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MSM hasnt been about news for quite some time now.I see no point in whining about that, however.
Slashdot is news.
The Web is news.
The willing has plenty of sources to stay informed.Having said that, Saint Obama isnt doing too well so far on many fronts, FoIA being just one of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527006</id>
	<title>Biased much?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268944380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Breitbart.com? Really? Has Slashdot become Free Republic?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Breitbart.com ?
Really ? Has Slashdot become Free Republic ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Breitbart.com?
Really? Has Slashdot become Free Republic?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528582</id>
	<title>Not so much amusing as ironic</title>
	<author>karcirate</author>
	<datestamp>1268905740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would say the delay in getting the so called "Open Government" documents is more ironic than amusing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say the delay in getting the so called " Open Government " documents is more ironic than amusing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say the delay in getting the so called "Open Government" documents is more ironic than amusing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31530084</id>
	<title>Re:The media can win this</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1268911800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Important to note:<br>It turns out people don't want actual fact. That would mean needed to rethink on an issue, maybe even change there mind.</p><p>No, facts, no matter how much proof you have, do not matter to people who let ideology dictate what they do.</p><p>Right now, people will scream down a Representative based on what some pundit told them. They don't want discourse. They want what they believe.</p><p>Look at tea baggers (heh), they have no clue about the constitution, have no idea why tea was thrown into the harbor(hint, not really taxes) and when what the say is pointed out to be factually wrong, they just scream.</p><p>A lot of republican groups do this as well. It started in 2000 when people used just screaming and fear to prevent ballot counts, and it's only gotten worse. I am not saying that is part of any republican party policy, only that groups of religo-cons believe they are 'right' just because. SInce they a 'right' clearly no rational discourse is needed.</p><p>sorry for the rant. For my next rant; Why Scientific polling has become slanted and is NOT scientific.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Important to note : It turns out people do n't want actual fact .
That would mean needed to rethink on an issue , maybe even change there mind.No , facts , no matter how much proof you have , do not matter to people who let ideology dictate what they do.Right now , people will scream down a Representative based on what some pundit told them .
They do n't want discourse .
They want what they believe.Look at tea baggers ( heh ) , they have no clue about the constitution , have no idea why tea was thrown into the harbor ( hint , not really taxes ) and when what the say is pointed out to be factually wrong , they just scream.A lot of republican groups do this as well .
It started in 2000 when people used just screaming and fear to prevent ballot counts , and it 's only gotten worse .
I am not saying that is part of any republican party policy , only that groups of religo-cons believe they are 'right ' just because .
SInce they a 'right ' clearly no rational discourse is needed.sorry for the rant .
For my next rant ; Why Scientific polling has become slanted and is NOT scientific .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Important to note:It turns out people don't want actual fact.
That would mean needed to rethink on an issue, maybe even change there mind.No, facts, no matter how much proof you have, do not matter to people who let ideology dictate what they do.Right now, people will scream down a Representative based on what some pundit told them.
They don't want discourse.
They want what they believe.Look at tea baggers (heh), they have no clue about the constitution, have no idea why tea was thrown into the harbor(hint, not really taxes) and when what the say is pointed out to be factually wrong, they just scream.A lot of republican groups do this as well.
It started in 2000 when people used just screaming and fear to prevent ballot counts, and it's only gotten worse.
I am not saying that is part of any republican party policy, only that groups of religo-cons believe they are 'right' just because.
SInce they a 'right' clearly no rational discourse is needed.sorry for the rant.
For my next rant; Why Scientific polling has become slanted and is NOT scientific.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528762</id>
	<title>How this works</title>
	<author>cmpalmer</author>
	<datestamp>1268906400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've done some work with federal agencies and how they process FOIA requests:</p><p>A request for information under the FOIA can be granted, partially denied, or denied. If the request is granted, the exact records requested are returned unedited. If the request is denied, one or more reasons (exceptions) must be stated from a list of allowed exemptions. If a request is partially denied, one or more exemptions must be stated and what the requester receives back will either be a subset of what was asked for or will be redacted to remove sensitive information. For example, PIA (personally identifiable information - like SSNs, birth dates, medical records, etc.) is an exemption and is grounds for a partial denial, but it usually only means that this information will be redacted from the requested records.</p><p>So if you are looking at statistics (annual FOIA reports are required by law from every government entity and the reports themselves are either published or available via FOIA request themselves), you need to know the total number of new requests, the total number of requests held over from the previous fiscal year, the number of requests granted, the number partially denied, and the number totally denied. There are also individual statistics for denials and partial denials broken down by exemptions. There isn't anything on the annual report about how many exemptions were applied to individual requests - that would just have to be averaged out.</p><p>The Obama administration did encourage more release of records under the FOIA and a relaxing of exemptions. The idea was to assume that any record could be released unless an exemption prevented it. The previous directive was to presume that any record could not released and then try to justify it. If they couldn't justify denying it, they would grudgingly release it. The other thing that has been encouraged is pre-emptive release. For any request that is granted (no exemptions) there is no reason to not put that record on the agency's public web site to avoid processing any future requests for it. Or if there are certain types of records that can be released and that get requested often, go ahead and publish them. Theoretically this will reduce the number of FOIA requests processed, but I think it's probably too early to see a difference based on this policy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've done some work with federal agencies and how they process FOIA requests : A request for information under the FOIA can be granted , partially denied , or denied .
If the request is granted , the exact records requested are returned unedited .
If the request is denied , one or more reasons ( exceptions ) must be stated from a list of allowed exemptions .
If a request is partially denied , one or more exemptions must be stated and what the requester receives back will either be a subset of what was asked for or will be redacted to remove sensitive information .
For example , PIA ( personally identifiable information - like SSNs , birth dates , medical records , etc .
) is an exemption and is grounds for a partial denial , but it usually only means that this information will be redacted from the requested records.So if you are looking at statistics ( annual FOIA reports are required by law from every government entity and the reports themselves are either published or available via FOIA request themselves ) , you need to know the total number of new requests , the total number of requests held over from the previous fiscal year , the number of requests granted , the number partially denied , and the number totally denied .
There are also individual statistics for denials and partial denials broken down by exemptions .
There is n't anything on the annual report about how many exemptions were applied to individual requests - that would just have to be averaged out.The Obama administration did encourage more release of records under the FOIA and a relaxing of exemptions .
The idea was to assume that any record could be released unless an exemption prevented it .
The previous directive was to presume that any record could not released and then try to justify it .
If they could n't justify denying it , they would grudgingly release it .
The other thing that has been encouraged is pre-emptive release .
For any request that is granted ( no exemptions ) there is no reason to not put that record on the agency 's public web site to avoid processing any future requests for it .
Or if there are certain types of records that can be released and that get requested often , go ahead and publish them .
Theoretically this will reduce the number of FOIA requests processed , but I think it 's probably too early to see a difference based on this policy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've done some work with federal agencies and how they process FOIA requests:A request for information under the FOIA can be granted, partially denied, or denied.
If the request is granted, the exact records requested are returned unedited.
If the request is denied, one or more reasons (exceptions) must be stated from a list of allowed exemptions.
If a request is partially denied, one or more exemptions must be stated and what the requester receives back will either be a subset of what was asked for or will be redacted to remove sensitive information.
For example, PIA (personally identifiable information - like SSNs, birth dates, medical records, etc.
) is an exemption and is grounds for a partial denial, but it usually only means that this information will be redacted from the requested records.So if you are looking at statistics (annual FOIA reports are required by law from every government entity and the reports themselves are either published or available via FOIA request themselves), you need to know the total number of new requests, the total number of requests held over from the previous fiscal year, the number of requests granted, the number partially denied, and the number totally denied.
There are also individual statistics for denials and partial denials broken down by exemptions.
There isn't anything on the annual report about how many exemptions were applied to individual requests - that would just have to be averaged out.The Obama administration did encourage more release of records under the FOIA and a relaxing of exemptions.
The idea was to assume that any record could be released unless an exemption prevented it.
The previous directive was to presume that any record could not released and then try to justify it.
If they couldn't justify denying it, they would grudgingly release it.
The other thing that has been encouraged is pre-emptive release.
For any request that is granted (no exemptions) there is no reason to not put that record on the agency's public web site to avoid processing any future requests for it.
Or if there are certain types of records that can be released and that get requested often, go ahead and publish them.
Theoretically this will reduce the number of FOIA requests processed, but I think it's probably too early to see a difference based on this policy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528054</id>
	<title>Re:I'm with the Dark Wraith on this one</title>
	<author>Brett Buck</author>
	<datestamp>1268904120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, everyone with more than one functional brain cell had him pegged A LOT more than a year ago!</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Brett</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , everyone with more than one functional brain cell had him pegged A LOT more than a year ago !
        Brett</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, everyone with more than one functional brain cell had him pegged A LOT more than a year ago!
        Brett</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527248</id>
	<title>Today's Government</title>
	<author>jmactacular</author>
	<datestamp>1268945040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's amazing how much hoopla goes into picking and voting for a particular party, when government is so much bigger than just one man (or woman).  It makes you wonder if anything will ever, or can ever, change.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's amazing how much hoopla goes into picking and voting for a particular party , when government is so much bigger than just one man ( or woman ) .
It makes you wonder if anything will ever , or can ever , change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's amazing how much hoopla goes into picking and voting for a particular party, when government is so much bigger than just one man (or woman).
It makes you wonder if anything will ever, or can ever, change.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31530668</id>
	<title>Re:the missing birth certificate statistic</title>
	<author>Jack9</author>
	<datestamp>1268915280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. posters just suck at basic science? The experimental data of "does president O do Y more or less than president B" totally ignores the fact that the inforation being requested initially (while B was in charge) reduced the finite set of information that applies to the FoIA for O to allow. Correlation does not imply causation</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do / .
posters just suck at basic science ?
The experimental data of " does president O do Y more or less than president B " totally ignores the fact that the inforation being requested initially ( while B was in charge ) reduced the finite set of information that applies to the FoIA for O to allow .
Correlation does not imply causation</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do /.
posters just suck at basic science?
The experimental data of "does president O do Y more or less than president B" totally ignores the fact that the inforation being requested initially (while B was in charge) reduced the finite set of information that applies to the FoIA for O to allow.
Correlation does not imply causation</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31549146</id>
	<title>Re:the missing birth certificate statistic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269096540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What goes unmentioned:</p><p>97\% of the millions of denied FoIA requests that make up this statistic were requests for Obama's birth certificate.</p></div><p>Got a link to that statistic?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What goes unmentioned : 97 \ % of the millions of denied FoIA requests that make up this statistic were requests for Obama 's birth certificate.Got a link to that statistic ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What goes unmentioned:97\% of the millions of denied FoIA requests that make up this statistic were requests for Obama's birth certificate.Got a link to that statistic?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527224</id>
	<title>I'm with the Dark Wraith on this one</title>
	<author>BubbaDave</author>
	<datestamp>1268944980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't look at Obama as left/right lib/conservative, you have to consider him as authoritarian.</p><p><a href="http://www.dark-wraith.com/" title="dark-wraith.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.dark-wraith.com/</a> [dark-wraith.com]</p><p>He had him pegged as this at least a year ago, if you check his archives.</p><p>Dave</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't look at Obama as left/right lib/conservative , you have to consider him as authoritarian.http : //www.dark-wraith.com/ [ dark-wraith.com ] He had him pegged as this at least a year ago , if you check his archives.Dave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't look at Obama as left/right lib/conservative, you have to consider him as authoritarian.http://www.dark-wraith.com/ [dark-wraith.com]He had him pegged as this at least a year ago, if you check his archives.Dave</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31531554</id>
	<title>Re:Obama is the New Bush</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268921100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is your blog limited to Bushy actions, or can it include something that smells <a href="http://spectator.org/archives/2010/03/16/specter-opens-door-on-white-ho/" title="spectator.org" rel="nofollow">more like Nixon</a> [spectator.org]?  Well, not so much the content of the scandal as the stonewalling.</p><p>Looks like someone in the White house offered two congressmen jobs in exchange for dropping their challenges to incumbent democratic congressmen.  I only heard about it because Sestak is a rep in my state.  Press Secretary Robert Gibbs keeps turning aside questions about the issue, probably because it's a felony.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is your blog limited to Bushy actions , or can it include something that smells more like Nixon [ spectator.org ] ?
Well , not so much the content of the scandal as the stonewalling.Looks like someone in the White house offered two congressmen jobs in exchange for dropping their challenges to incumbent democratic congressmen .
I only heard about it because Sestak is a rep in my state .
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs keeps turning aside questions about the issue , probably because it 's a felony .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is your blog limited to Bushy actions, or can it include something that smells more like Nixon [spectator.org]?
Well, not so much the content of the scandal as the stonewalling.Looks like someone in the White house offered two congressmen jobs in exchange for dropping their challenges to incumbent democratic congressmen.
I only heard about it because Sestak is a rep in my state.
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs keeps turning aside questions about the issue, probably because it's a felony.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527670</id>
	<title>Re:The truth is, I trust him more than Bush</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268902920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have realized at least one thing. You are a fucking moron.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have realized at least one thing .
You are a fucking moron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have realized at least one thing.
You are a fucking moron.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528128</id>
	<title>Meet the new boss</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268904240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Same (or worse) as the old boss.  Is anybody really surprised?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Same ( or worse ) as the old boss .
Is anybody really surprised ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same (or worse) as the old boss.
Is anybody really surprised?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527900</id>
	<title>the missing birth certificate statistic</title>
	<author>evilmousse</author>
	<datestamp>1268903640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What goes unmentioned:</p><p>97\% of the millions of denied FoIA requests that make up this statistic were requests for Obama's birth certificate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What goes unmentioned : 97 \ % of the millions of denied FoIA requests that make up this statistic were requests for Obama 's birth certificate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What goes unmentioned:97\% of the millions of denied FoIA requests that make up this statistic were requests for Obama's birth certificate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31532246</id>
	<title>Re:The media can win this</title>
	<author>517714</author>
	<datestamp>1268927400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The key word being IF.  Doesn't that kind of remove the comment from the realm of insightful?

The media are owned by people who buy the politicians, why would they want to rat them out?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The key word being IF .
Does n't that kind of remove the comment from the realm of insightful ?
The media are owned by people who buy the politicians , why would they want to rat them out ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The key word being IF.
Doesn't that kind of remove the comment from the realm of insightful?
The media are owned by people who buy the politicians, why would they want to rat them out?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527152</id>
	<title>The truth is, I trust him more than Bush</title>
	<author>Zot Quixote</author>
	<datestamp>1268944740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Transparency is great, but there are times when it is pragmatic to not be transparent. I don't trust the Republicans not to use this to oppress people. The Dems...well they have their vices, but I don't feel like I personally an being threatened by an oppressive regime.

Also, Breitbart is doesn't have much credibility after some of the nonsense that's gotten on there. Breitbart and Drudge are in bed together and are essentially the web's version of Fox News. Hopefully people will get around to realizing that sooner rather than later.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Transparency is great , but there are times when it is pragmatic to not be transparent .
I do n't trust the Republicans not to use this to oppress people .
The Dems...well they have their vices , but I do n't feel like I personally an being threatened by an oppressive regime .
Also , Breitbart is does n't have much credibility after some of the nonsense that 's gotten on there .
Breitbart and Drudge are in bed together and are essentially the web 's version of Fox News .
Hopefully people will get around to realizing that sooner rather than later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Transparency is great, but there are times when it is pragmatic to not be transparent.
I don't trust the Republicans not to use this to oppress people.
The Dems...well they have their vices, but I don't feel like I personally an being threatened by an oppressive regime.
Also, Breitbart is doesn't have much credibility after some of the nonsense that's gotten on there.
Breitbart and Drudge are in bed together and are essentially the web's version of Fox News.
Hopefully people will get around to realizing that sooner rather than later.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31531812</id>
	<title>Re:the missing birth certificate statistic</title>
	<author>Low Ranked Craig</author>
	<datestamp>1268923320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not at 10-20 a week: <a href="http://www.examiner.com/x-12767-US-Headlines-Examiner~y2010m3d17-Hawaii-considers-making-it-legal-to-ignore-birther-requests-for-presidents-birth-certificate" title="examiner.com">http://www.examiner.com/x-12767-US-Headlines-Examiner~y2010m3d17-Hawaii-considers-making-it-legal-to-ignore-birther-requests-for-presidents-birth-certificate</a> [examiner.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not at 10-20 a week : http : //www.examiner.com/x-12767-US-Headlines-Examiner ~ y2010m3d17-Hawaii-considers-making-it-legal-to-ignore-birther-requests-for-presidents-birth-certificate [ examiner.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not at 10-20 a week: http://www.examiner.com/x-12767-US-Headlines-Examiner~y2010m3d17-Hawaii-considers-making-it-legal-to-ignore-birther-requests-for-presidents-birth-certificate [examiner.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527970</id>
	<title>Re:is someone running up the numbers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268903880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same thing happened to Bush.  it wouldn't surprise me if anti-obama spinsters would repeatedly request denied items just to contrive this story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same thing happened to Bush .
it would n't surprise me if anti-obama spinsters would repeatedly request denied items just to contrive this story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same thing happened to Bush.
it wouldn't surprise me if anti-obama spinsters would repeatedly request denied items just to contrive this story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527890</id>
	<title>The Nine Exemptions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268903640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(From the EPA report, though all agencies use the same criteria)</p><p><i><br>a. Exemption 1: Classified national defense and foreign relations information<br>b. Exemption 2: Internal agency rules and practices<br>c. Exemption 3: Information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law<br>d. Exemption 4: Trade secrets and other confidential business information<br>e. Exemption 5: Inter-agency or intra-agency communications that are protected by legal privileges<br>f. Exemption 6: Information involving matters of personal privacy<br>g. Exemption 7: Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, to the extent that the production of those records (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual<br>h. Exemption 8: Information relating to the supervision of financial institutions<br>i. Exemption 9: Geological information on wells<br></i></p><p>Some of those exemptions provide for a certain amount of creativity on the part of the denier.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( From the EPA report , though all agencies use the same criteria ) a. Exemption 1 : Classified national defense and foreign relations informationb .
Exemption 2 : Internal agency rules and practicesc .
Exemption 3 : Information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal lawd .
Exemption 4 : Trade secrets and other confidential business informatione .
Exemption 5 : Inter-agency or intra-agency communications that are protected by legal privilegesf .
Exemption 6 : Information involving matters of personal privacyg .
Exemption 7 : Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes , to the extent that the production of those records ( A ) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings , ( B ) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication , ( C ) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy , ( D ) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source , ( E ) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions , or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions , or ( F ) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individualh .
Exemption 8 : Information relating to the supervision of financial institutionsi .
Exemption 9 : Geological information on wellsSome of those exemptions provide for a certain amount of creativity on the part of the denier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(From the EPA report, though all agencies use the same criteria)a. Exemption 1: Classified national defense and foreign relations informationb.
Exemption 2: Internal agency rules and practicesc.
Exemption 3: Information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal lawd.
Exemption 4: Trade secrets and other confidential business informatione.
Exemption 5: Inter-agency or intra-agency communications that are protected by legal privilegesf.
Exemption 6: Information involving matters of personal privacyg.
Exemption 7: Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, to the extent that the production of those records (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individualh.
Exemption 8: Information relating to the supervision of financial institutionsi.
Exemption 9: Geological information on wellsSome of those exemptions provide for a certain amount of creativity on the part of the denier.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527894</id>
	<title>Re:is someone running up the numbers?</title>
	<author>pastafazou</author>
	<datestamp>1268903640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except the only people with enough time on their hands (artists, welfare, ACORN workers, etc) to make tens of thousands of requests tend to be Obama supporters...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except the only people with enough time on their hands ( artists , welfare , ACORN workers , etc ) to make tens of thousands of requests tend to be Obama supporters.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except the only people with enough time on their hands (artists, welfare, ACORN workers, etc) to make tens of thousands of requests tend to be Obama supporters...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527272</id>
	<title>Re:The truth is, I trust him more than Bush</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1268945100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why do you particularly trust Obama more than Bush?  Obama's allegiance is, like Bush's was, to large corporations; it is simply a different set of corporations.  When it comes to what is best for the people of America, both Obama and his administration operate under the assumption that the only way to benefit American citizens is to increase the profits of American corporations, even if that means subverting democratic processes at home and abroad.  If you are not worried about your government sidestepping the very democratic principles that it was founded upon, then what exactly were you worried about when it came to Republicans?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you particularly trust Obama more than Bush ?
Obama 's allegiance is , like Bush 's was , to large corporations ; it is simply a different set of corporations .
When it comes to what is best for the people of America , both Obama and his administration operate under the assumption that the only way to benefit American citizens is to increase the profits of American corporations , even if that means subverting democratic processes at home and abroad .
If you are not worried about your government sidestepping the very democratic principles that it was founded upon , then what exactly were you worried about when it came to Republicans ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you particularly trust Obama more than Bush?
Obama's allegiance is, like Bush's was, to large corporations; it is simply a different set of corporations.
When it comes to what is best for the people of America, both Obama and his administration operate under the assumption that the only way to benefit American citizens is to increase the profits of American corporations, even if that means subverting democratic processes at home and abroad.
If you are not worried about your government sidestepping the very democratic principles that it was founded upon, then what exactly were you worried about when it came to Republicans?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528372</id>
	<title>Well you Slashtards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268904960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did vote for change did ya not?</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Hows that working out for ya?</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; You now own the change or rather it owns you dipshits</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did vote for change did ya not ?
      Hows that working out for ya ?
      You now own the change or rather it owns you dipshits</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did vote for change did ya not?
      Hows that working out for ya?
      You now own the change or rather it owns you dipshits</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1851243_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31532108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1851243_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31533080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1851243_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31529676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1851243_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31529384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1851243_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31533134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1851243_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1851243_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31530028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1851243_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31535172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1851243_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1851243_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31530826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1851243_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31529904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1851243_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1851243_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31617798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1851243_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31532246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1851243_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1851243_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31529990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1851243_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31549146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1851243_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1851243_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31530084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1851243_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1851243_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31533024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1851243_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1851243_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1851243_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1851243_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31529930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1851243_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1851243_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31530668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1851243_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31531554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1851243_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1851243_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31531882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1851243_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31534208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1851243_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1851243_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31531812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1851243_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1851243.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31532108
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1851243.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528054
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1851243.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527894
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528056
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1851243.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527106
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1851243.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527102
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1851243.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31529384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1851243.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31531554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31529930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31535172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31530028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31529676
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1851243.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1851243.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31533080
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1851243.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528128
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1851243.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527458
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1851243.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527642
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1851243.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528070
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1851243.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527248
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1851243.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528720
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1851243.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527344
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1851243.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31549146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31530826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31531812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31530668
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1851243.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31533134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31534208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31533024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31617798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31531882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31530084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31532246
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1851243.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31528762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31529990
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1851243.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31527890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1851243.31529904
</commentlist>
</conversation>
