<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_22_1515206</id>
	<title>Bill Would Require Public Information To Be Online</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1269272040000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:andurin@gmail.com" rel="nofollow">Andurin</a> writes <i>"A bill that was introduced in the US House of Representatives last week would require all Executive Branch agencies to publish public information on the Internet in a timely fashion and in user-friendly formats. The <a href="http://www.thepoia.org/">Public Online Information Act</a> would also establish an advisory committee to help craft Internet publication policies for the entire US government, including Congress and the Supreme Court. Citizens would have a limited, private right of action to compel the government to release public information online, though common sense exceptions (similar to those for FOIA) would remain in place."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Andurin writes " A bill that was introduced in the US House of Representatives last week would require all Executive Branch agencies to publish public information on the Internet in a timely fashion and in user-friendly formats .
The Public Online Information Act would also establish an advisory committee to help craft Internet publication policies for the entire US government , including Congress and the Supreme Court .
Citizens would have a limited , private right of action to compel the government to release public information online , though common sense exceptions ( similar to those for FOIA ) would remain in place .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Andurin writes "A bill that was introduced in the US House of Representatives last week would require all Executive Branch agencies to publish public information on the Internet in a timely fashion and in user-friendly formats.
The Public Online Information Act would also establish an advisory committee to help craft Internet publication policies for the entire US government, including Congress and the Supreme Court.
Citizens would have a limited, private right of action to compel the government to release public information online, though common sense exceptions (similar to those for FOIA) would remain in place.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31571348</id>
	<title>Re:Why Just Executive?</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1269281520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because, Congress are the ones making the law, and they sure as hell aren't going to give up THEIR secrecy.</p><p>Just like they've exempted themselves from this healthcare bill, or at least most of it.  It's one of the first things they did, and nobody made a big deal about it.</p><p>One thing you should be asking is if everything is going to be so much better under this bill, why doesn't it apply to the people who wrote it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because , Congress are the ones making the law , and they sure as hell are n't going to give up THEIR secrecy.Just like they 've exempted themselves from this healthcare bill , or at least most of it .
It 's one of the first things they did , and nobody made a big deal about it.One thing you should be asking is if everything is going to be so much better under this bill , why does n't it apply to the people who wrote it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because, Congress are the ones making the law, and they sure as hell aren't going to give up THEIR secrecy.Just like they've exempted themselves from this healthcare bill, or at least most of it.
It's one of the first things they did, and nobody made a big deal about it.One thing you should be asking is if everything is going to be so much better under this bill, why doesn't it apply to the people who wrote it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31589166</id>
	<title>Re:Healthcare debate fiasco COULD have been avoide</title>
	<author>Thinboy00</author>
	<datestamp>1269337980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It still has the individual mandate.  Without the Public Option, the mandate is worse than nothing since the health insurance firms now have a captive audience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It still has the individual mandate .
Without the Public Option , the mandate is worse than nothing since the health insurance firms now have a captive audience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It still has the individual mandate.
Without the Public Option, the mandate is worse than nothing since the health insurance firms now have a captive audience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31571044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31572122</id>
	<title>Re:One place where they could mess up...</title>
	<author>testadicazzo</author>
	<datestamp>1269283620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Plain text would be logical.  Then voluntary efforts can easily write automatic routines for extracting useful data.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Plain text would be logical .
Then voluntary efforts can easily write automatic routines for extracting useful data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plain text would be logical.
Then voluntary efforts can easily write automatic routines for extracting useful data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31569614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31574752</id>
	<title>Re:Hard not to like this</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1269249840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Some other countries have had laws like this for awhile.</i></p><p>Really?  Which ones?  I don't know of any.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some other countries have had laws like this for awhile.Really ?
Which ones ?
I do n't know of any .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some other countries have had laws like this for awhile.Really?
Which ones?
I don't know of any.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31569770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570150</id>
	<title>User friendly formats</title>
	<author>Kabuthunk</author>
	<datestamp>1269277680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>User friendly formats... pfft, they probably have a loophole to that and will put them in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.pdf format<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>User friendly formats... pfft , they probably have a loophole to that and will put them in .pdf format : P .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>User friendly formats... pfft, they probably have a loophole to that and will put them in .pdf format :P.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570574</id>
	<title>useless unless</title>
	<author>frovingslosh</author>
	<datestamp>1269278940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is actually a lot of public information "on-line", but it is rendered almost useless because many<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.gov websites ban spiders from crawling through them and Google (and I assume others) obey this ban. I have actually found some information that was very valuable to me, but only because I found and followed the right links. These pages on a public website under the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.gov tld were never indexed and could not be found easily as a result.
</p><p>I would suggest that the law require that spiders not be banned from open public sites, otherwise it is a sham.  I would also suggest that Google considers who really owns the information on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.gov sites and considers programming its spiders to not obey such a bogus instruction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is actually a lot of public information " on-line " , but it is rendered almost useless because many .gov websites ban spiders from crawling through them and Google ( and I assume others ) obey this ban .
I have actually found some information that was very valuable to me , but only because I found and followed the right links .
These pages on a public website under the .gov tld were never indexed and could not be found easily as a result .
I would suggest that the law require that spiders not be banned from open public sites , otherwise it is a sham .
I would also suggest that Google considers who really owns the information on .gov sites and considers programming its spiders to not obey such a bogus instruction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is actually a lot of public information "on-line", but it is rendered almost useless because many .gov websites ban spiders from crawling through them and Google (and I assume others) obey this ban.
I have actually found some information that was very valuable to me, but only because I found and followed the right links.
These pages on a public website under the .gov tld were never indexed and could not be found easily as a result.
I would suggest that the law require that spiders not be banned from open public sites, otherwise it is a sham.
I would also suggest that Google considers who really owns the information on .gov sites and considers programming its spiders to not obey such a bogus instruction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31572142</id>
	<title>Re:Funny thing about "common-sense exceptions"...</title>
	<author>jdgeorge</author>
	<datestamp>1269283680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While "common sense" is terribly rare in government, "exceptions" are never in short supply.</p></div><p>"Common sense" is also terribly rare everywhere outside of government, and "exceptions" are extremely common in everyday life. The blame for this aspect of the proposed legislation in question lies not with the government as such, but the fact that there are people involved.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While " common sense " is terribly rare in government , " exceptions " are never in short supply .
" Common sense " is also terribly rare everywhere outside of government , and " exceptions " are extremely common in everyday life .
The blame for this aspect of the proposed legislation in question lies not with the government as such , but the fact that there are people involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While "common sense" is terribly rare in government, "exceptions" are never in short supply.
"Common sense" is also terribly rare everywhere outside of government, and "exceptions" are extremely common in everyday life.
The blame for this aspect of the proposed legislation in question lies not with the government as such, but the fact that there are people involved.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31569482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31569486</id>
	<title>hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269275820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder how loosely defined public information will be for this? Meanwhile what's the use with foia exemptions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how loosely defined public information will be for this ?
Meanwhile what 's the use with foia exemptions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how loosely defined public information will be for this?
Meanwhile what's the use with foia exemptions?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570110</id>
	<title>Re:Hard not to like this</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1269277560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you not hear about the amendment that Al Franken proposed a few months ago?  After the big public relations nightmare that happened, he introduced a bill to not allow contracts with companies that force employees into arbitration, giving up their rights to the courts in case of Rape.  A whole bunch of the Minority party was against it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you not hear about the amendment that Al Franken proposed a few months ago ?
After the big public relations nightmare that happened , he introduced a bill to not allow contracts with companies that force employees into arbitration , giving up their rights to the courts in case of Rape .
A whole bunch of the Minority party was against it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you not hear about the amendment that Al Franken proposed a few months ago?
After the big public relations nightmare that happened, he introduced a bill to not allow contracts with companies that force employees into arbitration, giving up their rights to the courts in case of Rape.
A whole bunch of the Minority party was against it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31569770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31579318</id>
	<title>Re:Why Just Executive?</title>
	<author>aklinux</author>
	<datestamp>1269277440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree. To heck with the Executive Branch.

Make Congress disclose. While we're at it, they only get 48hrs from time of receipt to publish the source of every nickle they get in contributions, including things like free travel.

I really don't care how much they get, I want to know where it ALL comes from<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... NO EXCEPTIONS!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
To heck with the Executive Branch .
Make Congress disclose .
While we 're at it , they only get 48hrs from time of receipt to publish the source of every nickle they get in contributions , including things like free travel .
I really do n't care how much they get , I want to know where it ALL comes from ... NO EXCEPTIONS !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
To heck with the Executive Branch.
Make Congress disclose.
While we're at it, they only get 48hrs from time of receipt to publish the source of every nickle they get in contributions, including things like free travel.
I really don't care how much they get, I want to know where it ALL comes from ... NO EXCEPTIONS!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31578582</id>
	<title>Gov't should have no expectation of privacy</title>
	<author>EmagGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1269269940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All email, phone conversations, meetings with lobbyists, and any other interaction by/with any government official in any capacity that is not classified as National Security, should be logged, recorded, and made public immediately. Government officials should have ZERO expectation of privacy, and indeed should have zero privacy at all while acting in an official capacity.</p><p>The People should be able to log into their congressperson's website on Monday and listen to every phone call that was made the day before, read every email sent or received, view all faxes, and watch every meeting. The technology exists, and it should be done...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... not that it ever will. The People have the Right to know everything their government does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All email , phone conversations , meetings with lobbyists , and any other interaction by/with any government official in any capacity that is not classified as National Security , should be logged , recorded , and made public immediately .
Government officials should have ZERO expectation of privacy , and indeed should have zero privacy at all while acting in an official capacity.The People should be able to log into their congressperson 's website on Monday and listen to every phone call that was made the day before , read every email sent or received , view all faxes , and watch every meeting .
The technology exists , and it should be done... ... not that it ever will .
The People have the Right to know everything their government does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All email, phone conversations, meetings with lobbyists, and any other interaction by/with any government official in any capacity that is not classified as National Security, should be logged, recorded, and made public immediately.
Government officials should have ZERO expectation of privacy, and indeed should have zero privacy at all while acting in an official capacity.The People should be able to log into their congressperson's website on Monday and listen to every phone call that was made the day before, read every email sent or received, view all faxes, and watch every meeting.
The technology exists, and it should be done... ... not that it ever will.
The People have the Right to know everything their government does.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570596</id>
	<title>Re:Hard not to like this</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1269279060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's a kind of bill that I can't imagine either party or any politician disliking out of principle.</p></div></blockquote><p>You have a very limited imagination, then.  I have no trouble at all imagining a politician disliking the idea of letting the riff-raff in "flyover country" read the bills he's proposing....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a kind of bill that I ca n't imagine either party or any politician disliking out of principle.You have a very limited imagination , then .
I have no trouble at all imagining a politician disliking the idea of letting the riff-raff in " flyover country " read the bills he 's proposing... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a kind of bill that I can't imagine either party or any politician disliking out of principle.You have a very limited imagination, then.
I have no trouble at all imagining a politician disliking the idea of letting the riff-raff in "flyover country" read the bills he's proposing....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31569770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570270</id>
	<title>Exceptions are a good idea. For a different reason</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269278040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone who works in (local) government, those exceptions are a really good idea.  We have a lot of information about the public... That is you.... Technically, most all of it is public record.  But we've deliberately not put much of it online, as it would be gold mine for identity theft.  You can still come in and ask for it, but letting some Chinese hacker download the whole thing is \_not\_ a good idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who works in ( local ) government , those exceptions are a really good idea .
We have a lot of information about the public... That is you.... Technically , most all of it is public record .
But we 've deliberately not put much of it online , as it would be gold mine for identity theft .
You can still come in and ask for it , but letting some Chinese hacker download the whole thing is \ _not \ _ a good idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who works in (local) government, those exceptions are a really good idea.
We have a lot of information about the public... That is you.... Technically, most all of it is public record.
But we've deliberately not put much of it online, as it would be gold mine for identity theft.
You can still come in and ask for it, but letting some Chinese hacker download the whole thing is \_not\_ a good idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31574122</id>
	<title>Re:useless unless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269290820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like we need a dedicated search engine for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.gov that takes the vigilante approach.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like we need a dedicated search engine for .gov that takes the vigilante approach .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like we need a dedicated search engine for .gov that takes the vigilante approach.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31575090</id>
	<title>Re: Who Pays?</title>
	<author>cayenne8</author>
	<datestamp>1269251160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Although I am almost rabid about the freedom of the public to know all things I wonder if anyone has estimated the costs involved in making all of the mentioned material available in digital form. It might eat up an awful lot of tax dollars."</i> <p>
I don't think after the passage of the recent health reform behemoth than anyone is worrying much any more over the spending of tax dollars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Although I am almost rabid about the freedom of the public to know all things I wonder if anyone has estimated the costs involved in making all of the mentioned material available in digital form .
It might eat up an awful lot of tax dollars .
" I do n't think after the passage of the recent health reform behemoth than anyone is worrying much any more over the spending of tax dollars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Although I am almost rabid about the freedom of the public to know all things I wonder if anyone has estimated the costs involved in making all of the mentioned material available in digital form.
It might eat up an awful lot of tax dollars.
" 
I don't think after the passage of the recent health reform behemoth than anyone is worrying much any more over the spending of tax dollars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31571338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570932</id>
	<title>mandated increases in govt spending ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269280320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, there are still a few politicians left whose dislike of mandated increases in federal government spending arises from principle rather than some party line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , there are still a few politicians left whose dislike of mandated increases in federal government spending arises from principle rather than some party line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, there are still a few politicians left whose dislike of mandated increases in federal government spending arises from principle rather than some party line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31569770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570592</id>
	<title>Re:Is PDF "user friendly"?</title>
	<author>simcop2387</author>
	<datestamp>1269279000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>actually kpdf/okular only obey those restrictions by default, there's a setting in there that lets you ignore all of those (quite useful for things like the fire prevention code)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>actually kpdf/okular only obey those restrictions by default , there 's a setting in there that lets you ignore all of those ( quite useful for things like the fire prevention code )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>actually kpdf/okular only obey those restrictions by default, there's a setting in there that lets you ignore all of those (quite useful for things like the fire prevention code)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31569984</id>
	<title>Executive Branch Only?  Who cares?</title>
	<author>stoicfaux</author>
	<datestamp>1269277200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What exactly is going to be disclosed that isn't already being disclosed?  Personally, I'm more interested in what Congress (and the lobbyists) are doing than I am in the President, since the Legislative is the branch that actually creates laws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What exactly is going to be disclosed that is n't already being disclosed ?
Personally , I 'm more interested in what Congress ( and the lobbyists ) are doing than I am in the President , since the Legislative is the branch that actually creates laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What exactly is going to be disclosed that isn't already being disclosed?
Personally, I'm more interested in what Congress (and the lobbyists) are doing than I am in the President, since the Legislative is the branch that actually creates laws.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31573226</id>
	<title>Re:Healthcare debate fiasco COULD have been avoide</title>
	<author>slimjim8094</author>
	<datestamp>1269287400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All this stuff was online and accurate information was all over the place. The problem was certain groups and companies spreading falsehoods about it (death panels?) and people being too stupid to recognize cynical lies.</p><p>Had the fiasco been about the bill, it wouldn't have been about "yous gonna kill my gramma!" and the demise of America into simultaneously Nazi Germany *and* Russia.</p><p>In other words, the problem is not the lack of information. It's the fact that people hear what they want to hear, or otherwise get sucked in by propaganda, and refuse to have their minds changed even though the facts are readily available.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All this stuff was online and accurate information was all over the place .
The problem was certain groups and companies spreading falsehoods about it ( death panels ?
) and people being too stupid to recognize cynical lies.Had the fiasco been about the bill , it would n't have been about " yous gon na kill my gramma !
" and the demise of America into simultaneously Nazi Germany * and * Russia.In other words , the problem is not the lack of information .
It 's the fact that people hear what they want to hear , or otherwise get sucked in by propaganda , and refuse to have their minds changed even though the facts are readily available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All this stuff was online and accurate information was all over the place.
The problem was certain groups and companies spreading falsehoods about it (death panels?
) and people being too stupid to recognize cynical lies.Had the fiasco been about the bill, it wouldn't have been about "yous gonna kill my gramma!
" and the demise of America into simultaneously Nazi Germany *and* Russia.In other words, the problem is not the lack of information.
It's the fact that people hear what they want to hear, or otherwise get sucked in by propaganda, and refuse to have their minds changed even though the facts are readily available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570646</id>
	<title>Which Bill?</title>
	<author>dzfoo</author>
	<datestamp>1269279240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gates or Clinton?</p><p>Or (Heaven forfend) O'Reilly?</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -dZ.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gates or Clinton ? Or ( Heaven forfend ) O'Reilly ?
      -dZ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gates or Clinton?Or (Heaven forfend) O'Reilly?
      -dZ.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31574650</id>
	<title>Re:Healthcare debate fiasco COULD have been avoide</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1269249420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, the system worked as intended.  It lined the pockets of major corporations, and allowed politicians to pander to their base.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , the system worked as intended .
It lined the pockets of major corporations , and allowed politicians to pander to their base .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, the system worked as intended.
It lined the pockets of major corporations, and allowed politicians to pander to their base.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31571044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31571110</id>
	<title>ALL information to be published online.</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1269280920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes sir, all relevant information to be published online.
</p><p>With regards to "Yes Minister".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes sir , all relevant information to be published online .
With regards to " Yes Minister " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes sir, all relevant information to be published online.
With regards to "Yes Minister".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31579774</id>
	<title>Online, but not behind "paywall"?</title>
	<author>lpq</author>
	<datestamp>1269281880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While the bill stops explicit charging in future data provided to the public, it allows any existing "pay walls" to keep the public from \_freely\_ accessing the information over the internet to remain in place.  It will be interesting to see how many future cases will be \_*claimed*\_ to have been covered by prior "paywalls" (fees, cost recovery, licensing for maintenance...etc...) agreements \_if\_ this law passes...</p><p>IT certainly would never pass under a Republican administration or if the Republicans have their way, as they have, especially in the Bush era, shown a propensity toward "privatizing" all of these information sources in order to make the government "self-sustaining" -- i.e. affordable only to those who can afford to pay.</p><p>It's a very different mindset -- government, and its services, only for those who can pay for those services, vs. a government for all of the people.  It's said those ideals weren't further established into explicit constitutional protections before "fiscal conservatives" decided that government should strive for being  a "for-profit" business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While the bill stops explicit charging in future data provided to the public , it allows any existing " pay walls " to keep the public from \ _freely \ _ accessing the information over the internet to remain in place .
It will be interesting to see how many future cases will be \ _ * claimed * \ _ to have been covered by prior " paywalls " ( fees , cost recovery , licensing for maintenance...etc... ) agreements \ _if \ _ this law passes...IT certainly would never pass under a Republican administration or if the Republicans have their way , as they have , especially in the Bush era , shown a propensity toward " privatizing " all of these information sources in order to make the government " self-sustaining " -- i.e .
affordable only to those who can afford to pay.It 's a very different mindset -- government , and its services , only for those who can pay for those services , vs. a government for all of the people .
It 's said those ideals were n't further established into explicit constitutional protections before " fiscal conservatives " decided that government should strive for being a " for-profit " business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the bill stops explicit charging in future data provided to the public, it allows any existing "pay walls" to keep the public from \_freely\_ accessing the information over the internet to remain in place.
It will be interesting to see how many future cases will be \_*claimed*\_ to have been covered by prior "paywalls" (fees, cost recovery, licensing for maintenance...etc...) agreements \_if\_ this law passes...IT certainly would never pass under a Republican administration or if the Republicans have their way, as they have, especially in the Bush era, shown a propensity toward "privatizing" all of these information sources in order to make the government "self-sustaining" -- i.e.
affordable only to those who can afford to pay.It's a very different mindset -- government, and its services, only for those who can pay for those services, vs. a government for all of the people.
It's said those ideals weren't further established into explicit constitutional protections before "fiscal conservatives" decided that government should strive for being  a "for-profit" business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31575538</id>
	<title>No worries for them, it'll be organized like MSDN</title>
	<author>DCFusor</author>
	<datestamp>1269253020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So it will be there, just like a bunch of other stuff people whined was undocumented by Microsoft.
You just won't be able to find what you want.
Bureaucrats rejoice!  You're still safe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So it will be there , just like a bunch of other stuff people whined was undocumented by Microsoft .
You just wo n't be able to find what you want .
Bureaucrats rejoice !
You 're still safe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it will be there, just like a bunch of other stuff people whined was undocumented by Microsoft.
You just won't be able to find what you want.
Bureaucrats rejoice!
You're still safe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31575910</id>
	<title>This is actually really, really bad.</title>
	<author>daemonenwind</author>
	<datestamp>1269254580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the decisions were made about what government-owned information should be publically available, even telephones didn't exist.</p><p>This meant that, if you wanted local information on who ownes what plot of land, what leinholder holds interest in it, and what the tax rate is, it wasn't all that easy to get.  You had to travel to the town, pay a clerk a document fee, and wait while they go find the record and copy it for you.  This was very time- and effort-intensive, as well as somewhat expensive if you want more than a few records.</p><p>Now that everything's online, shady mortgage brokers can find out the assessed value of your house, as well as the fact that you own it.  People can (unless you're the president) look up your birth certificate and find out where and when you were born.  All of this and more is available online, to automated bulk requests.</p><p>Privacy is suffering in a way never intended.  The information is supposed to be available, but not simple to access.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the decisions were made about what government-owned information should be publically available , even telephones did n't exist.This meant that , if you wanted local information on who ownes what plot of land , what leinholder holds interest in it , and what the tax rate is , it was n't all that easy to get .
You had to travel to the town , pay a clerk a document fee , and wait while they go find the record and copy it for you .
This was very time- and effort-intensive , as well as somewhat expensive if you want more than a few records.Now that everything 's online , shady mortgage brokers can find out the assessed value of your house , as well as the fact that you own it .
People can ( unless you 're the president ) look up your birth certificate and find out where and when you were born .
All of this and more is available online , to automated bulk requests.Privacy is suffering in a way never intended .
The information is supposed to be available , but not simple to access .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the decisions were made about what government-owned information should be publically available, even telephones didn't exist.This meant that, if you wanted local information on who ownes what plot of land, what leinholder holds interest in it, and what the tax rate is, it wasn't all that easy to get.
You had to travel to the town, pay a clerk a document fee, and wait while they go find the record and copy it for you.
This was very time- and effort-intensive, as well as somewhat expensive if you want more than a few records.Now that everything's online, shady mortgage brokers can find out the assessed value of your house, as well as the fact that you own it.
People can (unless you're the president) look up your birth certificate and find out where and when you were born.
All of this and more is available online, to automated bulk requests.Privacy is suffering in a way never intended.
The information is supposed to be available, but not simple to access.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31576232</id>
	<title>Re: Who Pays?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269255960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While in gov't, we did all our docs electronically (micro$oft products required).  Producing the docs would be trivial.  Hosting them... that could be another issue.  However, when I left, they were trying to make all docs available on a central server, so even the hosting bit may not be too much.  Of course, this assumes the govt IT team has its act together.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While in gov't , we did all our docs electronically ( micro $ oft products required ) .
Producing the docs would be trivial .
Hosting them... that could be another issue .
However , when I left , they were trying to make all docs available on a central server , so even the hosting bit may not be too much .
Of course , this assumes the govt IT team has its act together .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While in gov't, we did all our docs electronically (micro$oft products required).
Producing the docs would be trivial.
Hosting them... that could be another issue.
However, when I left, they were trying to make all docs available on a central server, so even the hosting bit may not be too much.
Of course, this assumes the govt IT team has its act together.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31571338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31569482</id>
	<title>Funny thing about "common-sense exceptions"...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269275760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While "common sense" is terribly rare in government, "exceptions" are never in short supply.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While " common sense " is terribly rare in government , " exceptions " are never in short supply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While "common sense" is terribly rare in government, "exceptions" are never in short supply.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570814</id>
	<title>Devil's advocate...</title>
	<author>MikeRT</author>
	<datestamp>1269279840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This mandate will likely result in little of value for the tax payers because it is a general mandate, not a specific one. Most of us here know what happens when you do that with a software project. Government is not only no different, but is often worse. What is truly needed is targeted transparency. For example, all Inspector General reports should be posted online unless their publication, **in the opinion of the IG, not agency** presents a clear and present threat to national security or danger to the lives of government employees, private citizens or property. All government contracts should be posted online where possible. All competing offers as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This mandate will likely result in little of value for the tax payers because it is a general mandate , not a specific one .
Most of us here know what happens when you do that with a software project .
Government is not only no different , but is often worse .
What is truly needed is targeted transparency .
For example , all Inspector General reports should be posted online unless their publication , * * in the opinion of the IG , not agency * * presents a clear and present threat to national security or danger to the lives of government employees , private citizens or property .
All government contracts should be posted online where possible .
All competing offers as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This mandate will likely result in little of value for the tax payers because it is a general mandate, not a specific one.
Most of us here know what happens when you do that with a software project.
Government is not only no different, but is often worse.
What is truly needed is targeted transparency.
For example, all Inspector General reports should be posted online unless their publication, **in the opinion of the IG, not agency** presents a clear and present threat to national security or danger to the lives of government employees, private citizens or property.
All government contracts should be posted online where possible.
All competing offers as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31571792</id>
	<title>I have another idea...</title>
	<author>dwiget001</author>
	<datestamp>1269282660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about the House of Representatives (and the Senate, for that matter) propose a constitutional amendment like the following:</p><p>Any member of the U.S. House or Senate, any standing President and any federal appointee, or civilian worker) that violates their oath of office (House and Senate "... support and defend the Constitution...", President "... protect and defend the Constitution...", etc.) be charged with treason and prosecuted the the U.S. Federal court system. Upon conviction, for House and Senate members, they are removed from office, jailed for a period of at least five years but not more than ten, fined 10 times the amount of tax payer money they have been paid since their offense, and prohibited from ever serving in the U.S. government in any capacity whatsoever (cannot be elected to any Federal office, cannot be appointed to any position, cannot be hired to work in any capacity in the Federal government).</p><p>And, any U.S. House or Senate member, Presidential staff member, or other federal appointee or civilian that *failed* to report the violation of the oath of office, shall be subject to the same exact penalties.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about the House of Representatives ( and the Senate , for that matter ) propose a constitutional amendment like the following : Any member of the U.S. House or Senate , any standing President and any federal appointee , or civilian worker ) that violates their oath of office ( House and Senate " ... support and defend the Constitution... " , President " ... protect and defend the Constitution... " , etc .
) be charged with treason and prosecuted the the U.S. Federal court system .
Upon conviction , for House and Senate members , they are removed from office , jailed for a period of at least five years but not more than ten , fined 10 times the amount of tax payer money they have been paid since their offense , and prohibited from ever serving in the U.S. government in any capacity whatsoever ( can not be elected to any Federal office , can not be appointed to any position , can not be hired to work in any capacity in the Federal government ) .And , any U.S. House or Senate member , Presidential staff member , or other federal appointee or civilian that * failed * to report the violation of the oath of office , shall be subject to the same exact penalties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about the House of Representatives (and the Senate, for that matter) propose a constitutional amendment like the following:Any member of the U.S. House or Senate, any standing President and any federal appointee, or civilian worker) that violates their oath of office (House and Senate "... support and defend the Constitution...", President "... protect and defend the Constitution...", etc.
) be charged with treason and prosecuted the the U.S. Federal court system.
Upon conviction, for House and Senate members, they are removed from office, jailed for a period of at least five years but not more than ten, fined 10 times the amount of tax payer money they have been paid since their offense, and prohibited from ever serving in the U.S. government in any capacity whatsoever (cannot be elected to any Federal office, cannot be appointed to any position, cannot be hired to work in any capacity in the Federal government).And, any U.S. House or Senate member, Presidential staff member, or other federal appointee or civilian that *failed* to report the violation of the oath of office, shall be subject to the same exact penalties.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31572744</id>
	<title>Re:useless unless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269285600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That can be fixed easily since these are public documents.<br>Some experts who are regulars here can roll out a portal for that is weeks if not days.<br>IIRC, it's called wikinomics / crowd-sourcing or something like that - basically the wikipedia model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That can be fixed easily since these are public documents.Some experts who are regulars here can roll out a portal for that is weeks if not days.IIRC , it 's called wikinomics / crowd-sourcing or something like that - basically the wikipedia model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That can be fixed easily since these are public documents.Some experts who are regulars here can roll out a portal for that is weeks if not days.IIRC, it's called wikinomics / crowd-sourcing or something like that - basically the wikipedia model.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570962</id>
	<title>Re:Funny thing about "common-sense exceptions"...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269280440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While "common sense" is terribly rare in <b>our</b> government</p></div><p>Fixed that for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While " common sense " is terribly rare in our governmentFixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While "common sense" is terribly rare in our governmentFixed that for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31569482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31571044</id>
	<title>Re:Healthcare debate fiasco COULD have been avoide</title>
	<author>stoicfaux</author>
	<datestamp>1269280740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What fiasco?  The Public Option was removed and a compromise was reached on the Abortion aspects.  Sounds to me like the system worked as intended...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What fiasco ?
The Public Option was removed and a compromise was reached on the Abortion aspects .
Sounds to me like the system worked as intended.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What fiasco?
The Public Option was removed and a compromise was reached on the Abortion aspects.
Sounds to me like the system worked as intended...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570084</id>
	<title>Why Just Executive?</title>
	<author>anorlunda</author>
	<datestamp>1269277440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do all these transparency things only apply to the executive branch of government?</p><p>I think it should be just as important to the public to know who lobbied which congressman and how as it is to know who talked to the White House about energy policy or heath care.</p><p>How about emails?  Is there any rational arguments why rules about email archiving and disclosure are different for the different banches.</p><p>I'm afraid that the real answer to my question is that Congress always exempts itself from any kind of onerous rule. Just think how angry the public would be if they could read all those blackberry messages sent between members of the same party.</p><p>The judicial branch may have better arguments for secrecy, but even there the default rule ought to be openness.  Let them argue case by case to exempt different classes of records.</p><p>All three branches would argue that public disclosure puts a chilling effect on honest deliberations.  True, but all three branches need to deliberate to make decisions.  Again, there's no reason to give different treatment to any of the branches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do all these transparency things only apply to the executive branch of government ? I think it should be just as important to the public to know who lobbied which congressman and how as it is to know who talked to the White House about energy policy or heath care.How about emails ?
Is there any rational arguments why rules about email archiving and disclosure are different for the different banches.I 'm afraid that the real answer to my question is that Congress always exempts itself from any kind of onerous rule .
Just think how angry the public would be if they could read all those blackberry messages sent between members of the same party.The judicial branch may have better arguments for secrecy , but even there the default rule ought to be openness .
Let them argue case by case to exempt different classes of records.All three branches would argue that public disclosure puts a chilling effect on honest deliberations .
True , but all three branches need to deliberate to make decisions .
Again , there 's no reason to give different treatment to any of the branches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do all these transparency things only apply to the executive branch of government?I think it should be just as important to the public to know who lobbied which congressman and how as it is to know who talked to the White House about energy policy or heath care.How about emails?
Is there any rational arguments why rules about email archiving and disclosure are different for the different banches.I'm afraid that the real answer to my question is that Congress always exempts itself from any kind of onerous rule.
Just think how angry the public would be if they could read all those blackberry messages sent between members of the same party.The judicial branch may have better arguments for secrecy, but even there the default rule ought to be openness.
Let them argue case by case to exempt different classes of records.All three branches would argue that public disclosure puts a chilling effect on honest deliberations.
True, but all three branches need to deliberate to make decisions.
Again, there's no reason to give different treatment to any of the branches.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31571338</id>
	<title>Who Pays?</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1269281520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>      Although I am almost rabid about the freedom of the public to know all things I wonder if anyone has estimated the costs involved in making all of the mentioned material available in digital form. It might eat up an awful lot of tax dollars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although I am almost rabid about the freedom of the public to know all things I wonder if anyone has estimated the costs involved in making all of the mentioned material available in digital form .
It might eat up an awful lot of tax dollars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>      Although I am almost rabid about the freedom of the public to know all things I wonder if anyone has estimated the costs involved in making all of the mentioned material available in digital form.
It might eat up an awful lot of tax dollars.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570060</id>
	<title>Healthcare debate fiasco COULD have been avoided:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269277380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if this had been in effect.</p><p>Cough-cough, cough-cough, cough-cough...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if this had been in effect.Cough-cough , cough-cough , cough-cough.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if this had been in effect.Cough-cough, cough-cough, cough-cough...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31573928</id>
	<title>Too Much Information</title>
	<author>dcw3</author>
	<datestamp>1269290040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I'm all in favor of transparency in government, I hope this doesn't lead situations similar to what is going on in my local.  The county government here posts all tax information related to peoples homes online.  This includes the current assessment, owners names, price paid, etc.  And while it's all nice that this is available online, it has become the source of junkmail, and datamining by companies looking for folks fitting certain demographics.  Fortunately, the county finally saw the light, and allowed us citizens to opt out of having our names posted, and replacing them with "Name Withheld by Request".  So, now I get junk mail addressed like that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I 'm all in favor of transparency in government , I hope this does n't lead situations similar to what is going on in my local .
The county government here posts all tax information related to peoples homes online .
This includes the current assessment , owners names , price paid , etc .
And while it 's all nice that this is available online , it has become the source of junkmail , and datamining by companies looking for folks fitting certain demographics .
Fortunately , the county finally saw the light , and allowed us citizens to opt out of having our names posted , and replacing them with " Name Withheld by Request " .
So , now I get junk mail addressed like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I'm all in favor of transparency in government, I hope this doesn't lead situations similar to what is going on in my local.
The county government here posts all tax information related to peoples homes online.
This includes the current assessment, owners names, price paid, etc.
And while it's all nice that this is available online, it has become the source of junkmail, and datamining by companies looking for folks fitting certain demographics.
Fortunately, the county finally saw the light, and allowed us citizens to opt out of having our names posted, and replacing them with "Name Withheld by Request".
So, now I get junk mail addressed like that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31569680</id>
	<title>"Compel" with exceptions and "limited" rights?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269276420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You keep using that word .
I do not think it means what you think it means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570278</id>
	<title>How about congress?</title>
	<author>SWPadnos</author>
	<datestamp>1269278040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They should make a law that requires transcripts of all discussions with lobbyists to be published.</p><p>And define a lobbyist as "anyone who claims to represent the opinions of anyone else".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should make a law that requires transcripts of all discussions with lobbyists to be published.And define a lobbyist as " anyone who claims to represent the opinions of anyone else " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should make a law that requires transcripts of all discussions with lobbyists to be published.And define a lobbyist as "anyone who claims to represent the opinions of anyone else".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31569614</id>
	<title>One place where they could mess up...</title>
	<author>sdpuppy</author>
	<datestamp>1269276180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>user-friendly formats</p></div><p>What is considered user friendly?</p><p>
Word docs (but then you'll get docs with options such that only MS Word can read ?)</p><p>
text ?  </p><p>
PDF ?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>user-friendly formatsWhat is considered user friendly ?
Word docs ( but then you 'll get docs with options such that only MS Word can read ?
) text ?
PDF ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>user-friendly formatsWhat is considered user friendly?
Word docs (but then you'll get docs with options such that only MS Word can read ?
)
text ?
PDF ?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570166</id>
	<title>Is PDF "user friendly"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269277740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PDF seems to be the format of choice for this sort of thing. Indeed, in addition the Adobe's own reader, free ones like kpdf exist too and, for some reason, politicians care to preserve the exact formatting of the pages. (Yes, I know, lawyers need that, but they could &mdash; and do &mdash; just as easily refer to the sections and paragraphs...)

</p><p>But the format could be perfectly evil by, for example, prohibiting <em>printing</em> of the viewed document... For example, the <a href="http://www2.iccsafe.org/states/06NewJerseyFire/Fire\_Code/NJ\_Fire\_Frameset.html" title="iccsafe.org">New Jersey Fire Prevention Code</a> [iccsafe.org] are deliberately non-printable &mdash; and even kpdf obeys that restriction (you can still print it by running it through <tt>pdf2ps</tt> first, but try to teach your mother that).

</p><p>On top of that, it is also too easy to just scan a printed page into a PDF &mdash; as a monolithic (and thus <strong>not searchable</strong>) bitmap.

</p><p>Is the law being discussed smart enough to address these two problems? I don't think so...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PDF seems to be the format of choice for this sort of thing .
Indeed , in addition the Adobe 's own reader , free ones like kpdf exist too and , for some reason , politicians care to preserve the exact formatting of the pages .
( Yes , I know , lawyers need that , but they could    and do    just as easily refer to the sections and paragraphs... ) But the format could be perfectly evil by , for example , prohibiting printing of the viewed document... For example , the New Jersey Fire Prevention Code [ iccsafe.org ] are deliberately non-printable    and even kpdf obeys that restriction ( you can still print it by running it through pdf2ps first , but try to teach your mother that ) .
On top of that , it is also too easy to just scan a printed page into a PDF    as a monolithic ( and thus not searchable ) bitmap .
Is the law being discussed smart enough to address these two problems ?
I do n't think so.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PDF seems to be the format of choice for this sort of thing.
Indeed, in addition the Adobe's own reader, free ones like kpdf exist too and, for some reason, politicians care to preserve the exact formatting of the pages.
(Yes, I know, lawyers need that, but they could — and do — just as easily refer to the sections and paragraphs...)

But the format could be perfectly evil by, for example, prohibiting printing of the viewed document... For example, the New Jersey Fire Prevention Code [iccsafe.org] are deliberately non-printable — and even kpdf obeys that restriction (you can still print it by running it through pdf2ps first, but try to teach your mother that).
On top of that, it is also too easy to just scan a printed page into a PDF — as a monolithic (and thus not searchable) bitmap.
Is the law being discussed smart enough to address these two problems?
I don't think so...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570494</id>
	<title>Re:Is PDF "user friendly"?</title>
	<author>Dynedain</author>
	<datestamp>1269278700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>On top of that, it is also too easy to just scan a printed page into a PDF &mdash; as a monolithic (and thus not searchable) bitmap.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Running OCR on a pdf is pretty simple. Acrobat has that functionality built-in, and Google already does it for any PDFs they index.</p><p>and btw... the new<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. interface BLOWS CHUNKS</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On top of that , it is also too easy to just scan a printed page into a PDF    as a monolithic ( and thus not searchable ) bitmap .
Running OCR on a pdf is pretty simple .
Acrobat has that functionality built-in , and Google already does it for any PDFs they index.and btw... the new / .
interface BLOWS CHUNKS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On top of that, it is also too easy to just scan a printed page into a PDF — as a monolithic (and thus not searchable) bitmap.
Running OCR on a pdf is pretty simple.
Acrobat has that functionality built-in, and Google already does it for any PDFs they index.and btw... the new /.
interface BLOWS CHUNKS
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31573272</id>
	<title>Re:Executive Branch Only?</title>
	<author>Ichido</author>
	<datestamp>1269287520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's a great idea but I find it a bit funny that the legislative branch is not included in this bill.</p></div><p>Not "Funny" just business as usual.
King B. Hussein Obama has spoken.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a great idea but I find it a bit funny that the legislative branch is not included in this bill.Not " Funny " just business as usual .
King B. Hussein Obama has spoken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a great idea but I find it a bit funny that the legislative branch is not included in this bill.Not "Funny" just business as usual.
King B. Hussein Obama has spoken.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31569808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31569856</id>
	<title>"Common Sense Exceptions" defined as...</title>
	<author>Flounder</author>
	<datestamp>1269276840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...anything we decide we don't want to let you know about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...anything we decide we do n't want to let you know about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...anything we decide we don't want to let you know about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31575304</id>
	<title>Wow, What A Stupid Comment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269251940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another fucking clown rushing to spew another idiotic comment to whore karma instead of actually making this site a place for grownups to discuss ideas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another fucking clown rushing to spew another idiotic comment to whore karma instead of actually making this site a place for grownups to discuss ideas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another fucking clown rushing to spew another idiotic comment to whore karma instead of actually making this site a place for grownups to discuss ideas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31569984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31572096</id>
	<title>Re:Why Just Executive?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269283500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the question that you're asking is:</p><p>Why don't the corrupt legislators pass laws that make it easier to identify corruption in the legislature instead of passing laws which make it easier to pay attention to the corruption of anyone but themselves?</p><p>Ah, Ok. Just making sure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the question that you 're asking is : Why do n't the corrupt legislators pass laws that make it easier to identify corruption in the legislature instead of passing laws which make it easier to pay attention to the corruption of anyone but themselves ? Ah , Ok. Just making sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the question that you're asking is:Why don't the corrupt legislators pass laws that make it easier to identify corruption in the legislature instead of passing laws which make it easier to pay attention to the corruption of anyone but themselves?Ah, Ok. Just making sure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31569808</id>
	<title>Executive Branch Only?</title>
	<author>TheNinjaroach</author>
	<datestamp>1269276720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a great idea but I find it a bit funny that the legislative branch is not included in this bill.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a great idea but I find it a bit funny that the legislative branch is not included in this bill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a great idea but I find it a bit funny that the legislative branch is not included in this bill.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31569770</id>
	<title>Hard not to like this</title>
	<author>Improv</author>
	<datestamp>1269276600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some other countries have had laws like this for awhile. It's a kind of bill that I can't imagine either party or any politician disliking out of principle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some other countries have had laws like this for awhile .
It 's a kind of bill that I ca n't imagine either party or any politician disliking out of principle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some other countries have had laws like this for awhile.
It's a kind of bill that I can't imagine either party or any politician disliking out of principle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31586998</id>
	<title>India did it first!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269371580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is called the Right to Information Act , 2005, in India and is more powerful than the one being introduced in the US.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is called the Right to Information Act , 2005 , in India and is more powerful than the one being introduced in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is called the Right to Information Act , 2005, in India and is more powerful than the one being introduced in the US.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1515206_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31579318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1515206_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31575090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31571338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1515206_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31571348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1515206_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31569770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1515206_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1515206_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31569482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1515206_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31574650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31571044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1515206_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31574122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1515206_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31572096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1515206_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31569770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1515206_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31575304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31569984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1515206_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31572744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1515206_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31573272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31569808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1515206_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31572142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31569482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1515206_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31589166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31571044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1515206_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1515206_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31569770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1515206_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31574752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31569770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1515206_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31573226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1515206_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31576232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31571338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1515206_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31572122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31569614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1515206.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31569680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1515206.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31571338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31576232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31575090
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1515206.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570494
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1515206.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31572096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31579318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31571348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1515206.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31569984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31575304
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1515206.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1515206.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31571792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1515206.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31569486
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1515206.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31569482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31572142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570962
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1515206.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570646
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1515206.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31569808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31573272
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1515206.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31574122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31572744
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1515206.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31569856
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1515206.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31571044
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31589166
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31574650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31573226
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1515206.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31569614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31572122
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1515206.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31569770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31570110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1515206.31574752
</commentlist>
</conversation>
