<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_24_1321224</id>
	<title>Wikileaks Receiving Gestapo Treatment?</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1269442620000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Wikileaks announced on Mar 21 (via its twitter account) its intentions 'to reveal Pentagon murder-coverup at US National Press Club, Apr 5, 9am.' It appears that during the last 24 hours someone from <a href="http://www.twitter.com/wikileaks">the State Department/CIA decided to visit them</a>, by 'following/photographing/filming/detaining' an editor for 22 hours. Apparently, the offending leak is a video footage of a US airstrike."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Wikileaks announced on Mar 21 ( via its twitter account ) its intentions 'to reveal Pentagon murder-coverup at US National Press Club , Apr 5 , 9am .
' It appears that during the last 24 hours someone from the State Department/CIA decided to visit them , by 'following/photographing/filming/detaining ' an editor for 22 hours .
Apparently , the offending leak is a video footage of a US airstrike .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Wikileaks announced on Mar 21 (via its twitter account) its intentions 'to reveal Pentagon murder-coverup at US National Press Club, Apr 5, 9am.
' It appears that during the last 24 hours someone from the State Department/CIA decided to visit them, by 'following/photographing/filming/detaining' an editor for 22 hours.
Apparently, the offending leak is a video footage of a US airstrike.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598286</id>
	<title>I have evidence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269448200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>regarding alien technology...but i'm a coward so i'm safe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>regarding alien technology...but i 'm a coward so i 'm safe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>regarding alien technology...but i'm a coward so i'm safe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31599504</id>
	<title>Remember our history.</title>
	<author>LaminatorX</author>
	<datestamp>1269452520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The parallels between what wikileaks does and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon\_Papers" title="wikipedia.org">Pentagon Papers</a> [wikipedia.org] case are significant, and should be obvious.</p><p>From the SCOTUS Ruling in <a href="http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC\_CR\_0403\_0713\_ZS.html" title="cornell.edu">New York Times Co. v. United States:</a> [cornell.edu] </p><blockquote><div><p>We granted certiorari in these cases in which the United States seeks to enjoin the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing the contents of a classified study entitled "History of U.S. Decision-Making Process on Viet Nam Policy." Post, pp. 942, 943.</p><p>"Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity." Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70 (1963); see also Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931). The Government "thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint."</p></div></blockquote><p>From the leaker in that case (who did face prosecution):</p><blockquote><div><p>I felt that as an American citizen, as a responsible citizen, I could no longer cooperate in concealing this information from the American public. I did this clearly at my own jeopardy and I am prepared to answer to all the consequences of this decision</p></div></blockquote><p>-- Ellsberg on why he released the Pentagon Papers to the press</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The parallels between what wikileaks does and the Pentagon Papers [ wikipedia.org ] case are significant , and should be obvious.From the SCOTUS Ruling in New York Times Co. v. United States : [ cornell.edu ] We granted certiorari in these cases in which the United States seeks to enjoin the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing the contents of a classified study entitled " History of U.S. Decision-Making Process on Viet Nam Policy .
" Post , pp .
942 , 943 .
" Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity .
" Bantam Books , Inc. v. Sullivan , 372 U.S. 58 , 70 ( 1963 ) ; see also Near v. Minnesota , 283 U.S. 697 ( 1931 ) .
The Government " thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint .
" From the leaker in that case ( who did face prosecution ) : I felt that as an American citizen , as a responsible citizen , I could no longer cooperate in concealing this information from the American public .
I did this clearly at my own jeopardy and I am prepared to answer to all the consequences of this decision-- Ellsberg on why he released the Pentagon Papers to the press</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The parallels between what wikileaks does and the Pentagon Papers [wikipedia.org] case are significant, and should be obvious.From the SCOTUS Ruling in New York Times Co. v. United States: [cornell.edu] We granted certiorari in these cases in which the United States seeks to enjoin the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing the contents of a classified study entitled "History of U.S. Decision-Making Process on Viet Nam Policy.
" Post, pp.
942, 943.
"Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.
" Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70 (1963); see also Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931).
The Government "thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint.
"From the leaker in that case (who did face prosecution):I felt that as an American citizen, as a responsible citizen, I could no longer cooperate in concealing this information from the American public.
I did this clearly at my own jeopardy and I am prepared to answer to all the consequences of this decision-- Ellsberg on why he released the Pentagon Papers to the press
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31606532</id>
	<title>Re:What do they expect?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269443100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Again, did you miss the parts of the constitution where FREEDOM OF SPEECH and FREEDOM OF THE PRESS are mentioned?</p></div><p>It takes a lot to laugh. It takes a train to cry.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Again , did you miss the parts of the constitution where FREEDOM OF SPEECH and FREEDOM OF THE PRESS are mentioned ? It takes a lot to laugh .
It takes a train to cry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Again, did you miss the parts of the constitution where FREEDOM OF SPEECH and FREEDOM OF THE PRESS are mentioned?It takes a lot to laugh.
It takes a train to cry.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31600656</id>
	<title>Re:What do they expect?</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1269456780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If you are decrypting or gaining access to decrypted classified video, what do they expect is going to happen?</i></p><p>If they believed they lived in a proper modern republic, they would believe that they would be protected by the first amendment for publishing the info, and by whistle-blower protections for gaining access to the information. The government is our servant, not our master. When a member or members of We The People reasonably believe that they have caught the authorities with their hand in the cookie jar, it is the sworn duty of the authorities as our servants to stand down and let The People speak, and if necessary, judge.</p><p><i>I worry a little that throwing raw data out there with interpretations like "murder-coverup" is just as political an act as covering it up, not to mention a little sensationalistic.</i></p><p>It is both those things, of course. Winning battles of the direction of society requires both sensationalism and politicking. We see it played out in every election. Don't hate the player, hate the game. The sad fact is that we who do not have administrative power cannot set the rules of the game. And given that we all (on both sides, to be fair) love our interpretation of the principles of The Nation, we must be willing to engage on the battlefield they give us, or accept the sacrifice of The Nation's principles.</p><p>War is hell. Freedom isn't free. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.</p><p>The "eternal" part is perhaps the most important one. We can't just fight for our Nation oversees, or only in time of war, or only against external enemies. Our Grand Experiment is tremendously delicate, and as susceptible to corruption from within as from without. And it is an experiment worth protecting -- because it has already shown (with occasional lapses, of course) more potential to be the shining light to the world than perhaps any other society in history. That is a big, scary, and sometimes painful responsibility -- but also something which gives me great pride.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are decrypting or gaining access to decrypted classified video , what do they expect is going to happen ? If they believed they lived in a proper modern republic , they would believe that they would be protected by the first amendment for publishing the info , and by whistle-blower protections for gaining access to the information .
The government is our servant , not our master .
When a member or members of We The People reasonably believe that they have caught the authorities with their hand in the cookie jar , it is the sworn duty of the authorities as our servants to stand down and let The People speak , and if necessary , judge.I worry a little that throwing raw data out there with interpretations like " murder-coverup " is just as political an act as covering it up , not to mention a little sensationalistic.It is both those things , of course .
Winning battles of the direction of society requires both sensationalism and politicking .
We see it played out in every election .
Do n't hate the player , hate the game .
The sad fact is that we who do not have administrative power can not set the rules of the game .
And given that we all ( on both sides , to be fair ) love our interpretation of the principles of The Nation , we must be willing to engage on the battlefield they give us , or accept the sacrifice of The Nation 's principles.War is hell .
Freedom is n't free .
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.The " eternal " part is perhaps the most important one .
We ca n't just fight for our Nation oversees , or only in time of war , or only against external enemies .
Our Grand Experiment is tremendously delicate , and as susceptible to corruption from within as from without .
And it is an experiment worth protecting -- because it has already shown ( with occasional lapses , of course ) more potential to be the shining light to the world than perhaps any other society in history .
That is a big , scary , and sometimes painful responsibility -- but also something which gives me great pride .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are decrypting or gaining access to decrypted classified video, what do they expect is going to happen?If they believed they lived in a proper modern republic, they would believe that they would be protected by the first amendment for publishing the info, and by whistle-blower protections for gaining access to the information.
The government is our servant, not our master.
When a member or members of We The People reasonably believe that they have caught the authorities with their hand in the cookie jar, it is the sworn duty of the authorities as our servants to stand down and let The People speak, and if necessary, judge.I worry a little that throwing raw data out there with interpretations like "murder-coverup" is just as political an act as covering it up, not to mention a little sensationalistic.It is both those things, of course.
Winning battles of the direction of society requires both sensationalism and politicking.
We see it played out in every election.
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
The sad fact is that we who do not have administrative power cannot set the rules of the game.
And given that we all (on both sides, to be fair) love our interpretation of the principles of The Nation, we must be willing to engage on the battlefield they give us, or accept the sacrifice of The Nation's principles.War is hell.
Freedom isn't free.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.The "eternal" part is perhaps the most important one.
We can't just fight for our Nation oversees, or only in time of war, or only against external enemies.
Our Grand Experiment is tremendously delicate, and as susceptible to corruption from within as from without.
And it is an experiment worth protecting -- because it has already shown (with occasional lapses, of course) more potential to be the shining light to the world than perhaps any other society in history.
That is a big, scary, and sometimes painful responsibility -- but also something which gives me great pride.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31603858</id>
	<title>Re:What do they expect?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269425940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you are decrypting or gaining access to decrypted classified video, what do they expect is going to happen?  Even if the video shows things that the government doesn't want us to see, I'd be a little disturbed if they did nothing about the breach of security.  It's like saying that if a guy knocks over a bank with my money in it, it's okay for him to have done it as long as he only took the money from the mobsters who use the bank.  Determining that footage "shows bad things" is not a security determination, it's a political determination.  I don't want security personnel making value judgments about the data that is entrusted to their care.  If it is classified, they need to find out who the leak is and deal with it.</p><p>To be honest, while I think its a good thing that cover-up data can come out, I worry a little that throwing raw data out there with interpretations like "murder-coverup" is just as political an act as covering it up, not to mention a little sensationalistic.  I mean, if its airstrike footage, it's not like they brought the aircraft camera into the room to film the alleged conspirators rubbing their hands together and saying "terminate them!".  It's a grainy black and white video of someone launching a missile or a laser-guided bomb and hitting something.  Maybe there is some date/time or even location data in the video.  What I don't expect we will see is "TERMINATED: Abdul Sayyid al-Derka HEADSHOT +50 points" pop up on the screen.</p></div><p>This is another off base analogy.   Not unexpected on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</p><p>The content of anything is political.  A scientific truth (which we don't use as nomenclature anymore for a well established theory) is decried because of the scientific nomenclature used to define it.</p><p>A murder coverup of a US national is NOT a national security concern unless that person is part of the nation's security.  So an air strike on a US national who is not enlisted, does not work for the state department, and is not an agent of a foreign government... how the fuck does that qualify?</p><p>I think sending CIA agents to shadow Wikileaks is a much larger breach of national security.  That's like giving a wheres waldo book to a color recog savant.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are decrypting or gaining access to decrypted classified video , what do they expect is going to happen ?
Even if the video shows things that the government does n't want us to see , I 'd be a little disturbed if they did nothing about the breach of security .
It 's like saying that if a guy knocks over a bank with my money in it , it 's okay for him to have done it as long as he only took the money from the mobsters who use the bank .
Determining that footage " shows bad things " is not a security determination , it 's a political determination .
I do n't want security personnel making value judgments about the data that is entrusted to their care .
If it is classified , they need to find out who the leak is and deal with it.To be honest , while I think its a good thing that cover-up data can come out , I worry a little that throwing raw data out there with interpretations like " murder-coverup " is just as political an act as covering it up , not to mention a little sensationalistic .
I mean , if its airstrike footage , it 's not like they brought the aircraft camera into the room to film the alleged conspirators rubbing their hands together and saying " terminate them ! " .
It 's a grainy black and white video of someone launching a missile or a laser-guided bomb and hitting something .
Maybe there is some date/time or even location data in the video .
What I do n't expect we will see is " TERMINATED : Abdul Sayyid al-Derka HEADSHOT + 50 points " pop up on the screen.This is another off base analogy .
Not unexpected on /.The content of anything is political .
A scientific truth ( which we do n't use as nomenclature anymore for a well established theory ) is decried because of the scientific nomenclature used to define it.A murder coverup of a US national is NOT a national security concern unless that person is part of the nation 's security .
So an air strike on a US national who is not enlisted , does not work for the state department , and is not an agent of a foreign government... how the fuck does that qualify ? I think sending CIA agents to shadow Wikileaks is a much larger breach of national security .
That 's like giving a wheres waldo book to a color recog savant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are decrypting or gaining access to decrypted classified video, what do they expect is going to happen?
Even if the video shows things that the government doesn't want us to see, I'd be a little disturbed if they did nothing about the breach of security.
It's like saying that if a guy knocks over a bank with my money in it, it's okay for him to have done it as long as he only took the money from the mobsters who use the bank.
Determining that footage "shows bad things" is not a security determination, it's a political determination.
I don't want security personnel making value judgments about the data that is entrusted to their care.
If it is classified, they need to find out who the leak is and deal with it.To be honest, while I think its a good thing that cover-up data can come out, I worry a little that throwing raw data out there with interpretations like "murder-coverup" is just as political an act as covering it up, not to mention a little sensationalistic.
I mean, if its airstrike footage, it's not like they brought the aircraft camera into the room to film the alleged conspirators rubbing their hands together and saying "terminate them!".
It's a grainy black and white video of someone launching a missile or a laser-guided bomb and hitting something.
Maybe there is some date/time or even location data in the video.
What I don't expect we will see is "TERMINATED: Abdul Sayyid al-Derka HEADSHOT +50 points" pop up on the screen.This is another off base analogy.
Not unexpected on /.The content of anything is political.
A scientific truth (which we don't use as nomenclature anymore for a well established theory) is decried because of the scientific nomenclature used to define it.A murder coverup of a US national is NOT a national security concern unless that person is part of the nation's security.
So an air strike on a US national who is not enlisted, does not work for the state department, and is not an agent of a foreign government... how the fuck does that qualify?I think sending CIA agents to shadow Wikileaks is a much larger breach of national security.
That's like giving a wheres waldo book to a color recog savant.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31602820</id>
	<title>The price of freedom is eternal vigilance</title>
	<author>bugi</author>
	<datestamp>1269421920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you wikileaks.  Your vigilance on our behalf is appreciated by many.</p><p>"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -- Thomas Jefferson</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you wikileaks .
Your vigilance on our behalf is appreciated by many .
" The price of freedom is eternal vigilance .
" -- Thomas Jefferson</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you wikileaks.
Your vigilance on our behalf is appreciated by many.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
" -- Thomas Jefferson</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31600058</id>
	<title>Re:Like a backseat driver...</title>
	<author>jimicus</author>
	<datestamp>1269454560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wasn't that Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't that Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't that Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598978</id>
	<title>Re:What do they expect?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269450540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>.  What I don't expect we will see is "TERMINATED: Abdul Sayyid al-Derka HEADSHOT +50 points" pop up on the screen.</p></div><p>But wouldn't it be pretty freakin awesome if you did?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.
What I do n't expect we will see is " TERMINATED : Abdul Sayyid al-Derka HEADSHOT + 50 points " pop up on the screen.But would n't it be pretty freakin awesome if you did ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
What I don't expect we will see is "TERMINATED: Abdul Sayyid al-Derka HEADSHOT +50 points" pop up on the screen.But wouldn't it be pretty freakin awesome if you did?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598942</id>
	<title>Re:What do they expect?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269450360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What I don't expect we will see is "TERMINATED: Abdul Sayyid al-Derka HEADSHOT +50 points" pop up on the screen.</p></div><p>I might actually be interested and watch the thing if they had an awesome HUD similar to games!  But no, this is just a boring stolen military video.  There were hundreds like them from other countries' militaries about six years ago.<br>As for "Capt Morgans" reply above, people don't have the freedom of speech to broadcast your copyright video unless there is absolute reason to (e.g., outing the illegal activities of the ACORN political group).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I do n't expect we will see is " TERMINATED : Abdul Sayyid al-Derka HEADSHOT + 50 points " pop up on the screen.I might actually be interested and watch the thing if they had an awesome HUD similar to games !
But no , this is just a boring stolen military video .
There were hundreds like them from other countries ' militaries about six years ago.As for " Capt Morgans " reply above , people do n't have the freedom of speech to broadcast your copyright video unless there is absolute reason to ( e.g. , outing the illegal activities of the ACORN political group ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I don't expect we will see is "TERMINATED: Abdul Sayyid al-Derka HEADSHOT +50 points" pop up on the screen.I might actually be interested and watch the thing if they had an awesome HUD similar to games!
But no, this is just a boring stolen military video.
There were hundreds like them from other countries' militaries about six years ago.As for "Capt Morgans" reply above, people don't have the freedom of speech to broadcast your copyright video unless there is absolute reason to (e.g., outing the illegal activities of the ACORN political group).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31597818</id>
	<title>Well, what did they expect?</title>
	<author>Anonymous Brave Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1269446460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are national security laws for a reason. If Wikileaks is going to publish sensitive information that is genuinely covered by those laws &mdash; and while I haven't seen the details, if this really is military video footage it might well be &mdash; then of course the security services are going to take steps, the same way they would with anyone else. Why anyone using/working on Wikileaks thinks they are above the law, I have never understood.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are national security laws for a reason .
If Wikileaks is going to publish sensitive information that is genuinely covered by those laws    and while I have n't seen the details , if this really is military video footage it might well be    then of course the security services are going to take steps , the same way they would with anyone else .
Why anyone using/working on Wikileaks thinks they are above the law , I have never understood .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are national security laws for a reason.
If Wikileaks is going to publish sensitive information that is genuinely covered by those laws — and while I haven't seen the details, if this really is military video footage it might well be — then of course the security services are going to take steps, the same way they would with anyone else.
Why anyone using/working on Wikileaks thinks they are above the law, I have never understood.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31601332</id>
	<title>Information about subject matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269459300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>An editor was followed to SKUP "Norwegian foundation for investigative journalism", as said on their Twitter page.



The editor was due to speak about a "Massacre Video" <a href="http://www.skup.no/177/3334" title="www.skup.no" rel="nofollow">http://www.skup.no/177/3334</a> [www.skup.no]

Article in Norwegian, talks about Killing of Journalist.

Paragraph translated to English=<p><div class="quote"><p> <i> Shooting video

Assange revealed in the speech that Wikilieaks going to run a video they have managed to decrypt. The video will be posted on the 5th in April and will, according to Wikileaks-spokesperson display photos from a massacre that has happened quite recently.



- I can not say much more than that. It has happened in the past year, "said Assange.  </i></p> </div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>An editor was followed to SKUP " Norwegian foundation for investigative journalism " , as said on their Twitter page .
The editor was due to speak about a " Massacre Video " http : //www.skup.no/177/3334 [ www.skup.no ] Article in Norwegian , talks about Killing of Journalist .
Paragraph translated to English = Shooting video Assange revealed in the speech that Wikilieaks going to run a video they have managed to decrypt .
The video will be posted on the 5th in April and will , according to Wikileaks-spokesperson display photos from a massacre that has happened quite recently .
- I can not say much more than that .
It has happened in the past year , " said Assange .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An editor was followed to SKUP "Norwegian foundation for investigative journalism", as said on their Twitter page.
The editor was due to speak about a "Massacre Video" http://www.skup.no/177/3334 [www.skup.no]

Article in Norwegian, talks about Killing of Journalist.
Paragraph translated to English=  Shooting video

Assange revealed in the speech that Wikilieaks going to run a video they have managed to decrypt.
The video will be posted on the 5th in April and will, according to Wikileaks-spokesperson display photos from a massacre that has happened quite recently.
- I can not say much more than that.
It has happened in the past year, "said Assange.   
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31599790</id>
	<title>Freenet</title>
	<author>Danathar</author>
	<datestamp>1269453660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why they don't use freenet for this is beyond me. Yes, freenet is not lighting fast but it's getting better and it would be MUCH more difficult for anybody to get them if they used it.</p><p><a href="http://freenetproject.org/" title="freenetproject.org">http://freenetproject.org/</a> [freenetproject.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why they do n't use freenet for this is beyond me .
Yes , freenet is not lighting fast but it 's getting better and it would be MUCH more difficult for anybody to get them if they used it.http : //freenetproject.org/ [ freenetproject.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why they don't use freenet for this is beyond me.
Yes, freenet is not lighting fast but it's getting better and it would be MUCH more difficult for anybody to get them if they used it.http://freenetproject.org/ [freenetproject.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31599998</id>
	<title>Gestapo treatment ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269454380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The author compares being followed and detained for 22 hours to "Gestapo treatment".</p><p>The lack of knowledge about the Gestapo truly makes you either<br>an dumbfuck who knows noting about history or a spotlight seeking sensationalist.</p><p>Your use of the word GESTAPO ridicules the suffering of Gestapo victims.</p><p>Show a couple of dead/tortured/mutilated citizens next time before you dare spell GESTAPO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The author compares being followed and detained for 22 hours to " Gestapo treatment " .The lack of knowledge about the Gestapo truly makes you eitheran dumbfuck who knows noting about history or a spotlight seeking sensationalist.Your use of the word GESTAPO ridicules the suffering of Gestapo victims.Show a couple of dead/tortured/mutilated citizens next time before you dare spell GESTAPO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The author compares being followed and detained for 22 hours to "Gestapo treatment".The lack of knowledge about the Gestapo truly makes you eitheran dumbfuck who knows noting about history or a spotlight seeking sensationalist.Your use of the word GESTAPO ridicules the suffering of Gestapo victims.Show a couple of dead/tortured/mutilated citizens next time before you dare spell GESTAPO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31604924</id>
	<title>Re:Impeach George Bush!!!</title>
	<author>mikelieman</author>
	<datestamp>1269431100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The word you're looking for is INDICT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The word you 're looking for is INDICT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The word you're looking for is INDICT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31602412</id>
	<title>Self Correcting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269463500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wikileaks is a self correcting system.  If the information is available to them, then it is by definition available to a motivated third party such as a foreign government.  If information makes it to wikileaks then American citizens have the right to know the information as well.</p><p>In other words, by the time a leak makes it to Wikileaks the damage has already been done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikileaks is a self correcting system .
If the information is available to them , then it is by definition available to a motivated third party such as a foreign government .
If information makes it to wikileaks then American citizens have the right to know the information as well.In other words , by the time a leak makes it to Wikileaks the damage has already been done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikileaks is a self correcting system.
If the information is available to them, then it is by definition available to a motivated third party such as a foreign government.
If information makes it to wikileaks then American citizens have the right to know the information as well.In other words, by the time a leak makes it to Wikileaks the damage has already been done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31597766</id>
	<title>Doesn't matter what country you are in...</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1269446280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...providing a service similar to what Wikileaks provides is always dangerous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...providing a service similar to what Wikileaks provides is always dangerous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...providing a service similar to what Wikileaks provides is always dangerous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31599314</id>
	<title>Re:What do they expect?</title>
	<author>jr2k</author>
	<datestamp>1269451800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry, but if I am the one lasing the target I would not want the enemy* to have a chance in hell to find me.</p><p>Sometimes the government needs to cover up information to protect it's soldiers. De-classify that info when it is obsolete, but not a minute sooner.</p><p>*although I did not agree with the "why", when I was over there, the guys pointing guns + rockets at are are the enemy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but if I am the one lasing the target I would not want the enemy * to have a chance in hell to find me.Sometimes the government needs to cover up information to protect it 's soldiers .
De-classify that info when it is obsolete , but not a minute sooner .
* although I did not agree with the " why " , when I was over there , the guys pointing guns + rockets at are are the enemy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but if I am the one lasing the target I would not want the enemy* to have a chance in hell to find me.Sometimes the government needs to cover up information to protect it's soldiers.
De-classify that info when it is obsolete, but not a minute sooner.
*although I did not agree with the "why", when I was over there, the guys pointing guns + rockets at are are the enemy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598488</id>
	<title>Impeach George Bush!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269448980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This proves he's a war criminal/fascist dictator!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This proves he 's a war criminal/fascist dictator !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This proves he's a war criminal/fascist dictator!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31601154</id>
	<title>Re:US Intel doc on Wikileaks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269458700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No conspiracy there, Excel truncates large numbers or converts them to scientific notation when a field width is too small to fit all of the characters in.  A simple autofit or dragging that field to make it larger would have fixed that issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No conspiracy there , Excel truncates large numbers or converts them to scientific notation when a field width is too small to fit all of the characters in .
A simple autofit or dragging that field to make it larger would have fixed that issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No conspiracy there, Excel truncates large numbers or converts them to scientific notation when a field width is too small to fit all of the characters in.
A simple autofit or dragging that field to make it larger would have fixed that issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31603184</id>
	<title>Re:What do they expect?</title>
	<author>nilbog</author>
	<datestamp>1269423300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From their twitter feed:</p><p>"Finally cracked the encryption to US military video in which journalists, among others, are shot. Thanks to all who donated $/CPUs."</p><p>Looks like there's more to the story than you've assumed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From their twitter feed : " Finally cracked the encryption to US military video in which journalists , among others , are shot .
Thanks to all who donated $ /CPUs .
" Looks like there 's more to the story than you 've assumed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From their twitter feed:"Finally cracked the encryption to US military video in which journalists, among others, are shot.
Thanks to all who donated $/CPUs.
"Looks like there's more to the story than you've assumed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31600126</id>
	<title>Too much free press?  Too few secrets?</title>
	<author>paulsnx2</author>
	<datestamp>1269454800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In WWII there was that saying, "loose lips sink ships".  It is generally applied today to mean that our nation cannot compete militarily or economically with the rest of the world if we are open about what our military does, where they are deployed, and what weapons they have.</p><p>I imagine the same goes for various companies, and their products.</p><p>I don't buy it.  First of all, the Intertubes pretty much allow unrestricted transfers of information around the world.  Spies don't have to meet reading newspapers in parks, or smuggle microfilm in false teeth.  We are not going to fool the people we have to fool militarily.</p><p>On the other hand, secrets allow governments/companies to harm others without any recourse to the victims.</p><p>We should error on the side of being open.  We have never done so to date.  We should try it, then fix any problems that might occur.</p><p>My bet is that no significant problem would occur.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In WWII there was that saying , " loose lips sink ships " .
It is generally applied today to mean that our nation can not compete militarily or economically with the rest of the world if we are open about what our military does , where they are deployed , and what weapons they have.I imagine the same goes for various companies , and their products.I do n't buy it .
First of all , the Intertubes pretty much allow unrestricted transfers of information around the world .
Spies do n't have to meet reading newspapers in parks , or smuggle microfilm in false teeth .
We are not going to fool the people we have to fool militarily.On the other hand , secrets allow governments/companies to harm others without any recourse to the victims.We should error on the side of being open .
We have never done so to date .
We should try it , then fix any problems that might occur.My bet is that no significant problem would occur .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In WWII there was that saying, "loose lips sink ships".
It is generally applied today to mean that our nation cannot compete militarily or economically with the rest of the world if we are open about what our military does, where they are deployed, and what weapons they have.I imagine the same goes for various companies, and their products.I don't buy it.
First of all, the Intertubes pretty much allow unrestricted transfers of information around the world.
Spies don't have to meet reading newspapers in parks, or smuggle microfilm in false teeth.
We are not going to fool the people we have to fool militarily.On the other hand, secrets allow governments/companies to harm others without any recourse to the victims.We should error on the side of being open.
We have never done so to date.
We should try it, then fix any problems that might occur.My bet is that no significant problem would occur.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598782</id>
	<title>Re:What do they expect?</title>
	<author>Capt\_Morgan</author>
	<datestamp>1269449880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Again, did you miss the parts of the constitution where FREEDOM OF SPEECH and FREEDOM OF THE PRESS are mentioned?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Again , did you miss the parts of the constitution where FREEDOM OF SPEECH and FREEDOM OF THE PRESS are mentioned ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Again, did you miss the parts of the constitution where FREEDOM OF SPEECH and FREEDOM OF THE PRESS are mentioned?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31600030</id>
	<title>You can't stop the signal.</title>
	<author>sonic\_assault</author>
	<datestamp>1269454500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wikileaks, while providing an amazing humanitarian service to us all, is expendable in a beautiful way. I say that because no matter what any government decides to do, there will always be another person/group to take the torch up when they fall.

Yes, we should all contribute money, code, time and whatever else we can spare for them. We should shout praises of them from mountaintops. But at the end of the day, organizations such as them should be expendable after a period of time.

Make the government(s) spend metric ass-loads of money on shutting them down. Make them waste their resources. Then dissolve the organization and create another one in it's place. Lather, rinse, repeat. You can't stop the signal. There are just too many bits to flip.

The only question is WHEN to cut and run. Two years? Ten years? THAT'S the discussion we should be having. When are our contributions actually being wasted. Sorry if this is off-topic at all, but I think that needed to be said.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikileaks , while providing an amazing humanitarian service to us all , is expendable in a beautiful way .
I say that because no matter what any government decides to do , there will always be another person/group to take the torch up when they fall .
Yes , we should all contribute money , code , time and whatever else we can spare for them .
We should shout praises of them from mountaintops .
But at the end of the day , organizations such as them should be expendable after a period of time .
Make the government ( s ) spend metric ass-loads of money on shutting them down .
Make them waste their resources .
Then dissolve the organization and create another one in it 's place .
Lather , rinse , repeat .
You ca n't stop the signal .
There are just too many bits to flip .
The only question is WHEN to cut and run .
Two years ?
Ten years ?
THAT 'S the discussion we should be having .
When are our contributions actually being wasted .
Sorry if this is off-topic at all , but I think that needed to be said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikileaks, while providing an amazing humanitarian service to us all, is expendable in a beautiful way.
I say that because no matter what any government decides to do, there will always be another person/group to take the torch up when they fall.
Yes, we should all contribute money, code, time and whatever else we can spare for them.
We should shout praises of them from mountaintops.
But at the end of the day, organizations such as them should be expendable after a period of time.
Make the government(s) spend metric ass-loads of money on shutting them down.
Make them waste their resources.
Then dissolve the organization and create another one in it's place.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
You can't stop the signal.
There are just too many bits to flip.
The only question is WHEN to cut and run.
Two years?
Ten years?
THAT'S the discussion we should be having.
When are our contributions actually being wasted.
Sorry if this is off-topic at all, but I think that needed to be said.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598338</id>
	<title>Obama lied</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269448380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>America died.<br> <br>Turk 183.</htmltext>
<tokenext>America died .
Turk 183 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>America died.
Turk 183.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598098</id>
	<title>Wikileak is a brand</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269447480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a brand. It has the word wiki and leak in it making it both feel trustable and sensational. It is their business and marketingplan. They keep sending out sensationalist stories out to the world. On the other end they are giving talks about free speech. Just a bunch of kids that found out a way to make money. I don't trust them, I don't read them, I don't watch them, I don't care where their servers are. They are an oxymoron like the your local wealthfare pulling anarchists. This is slashdot, damnit!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a brand .
It has the word wiki and leak in it making it both feel trustable and sensational .
It is their business and marketingplan .
They keep sending out sensationalist stories out to the world .
On the other end they are giving talks about free speech .
Just a bunch of kids that found out a way to make money .
I do n't trust them , I do n't read them , I do n't watch them , I do n't care where their servers are .
They are an oxymoron like the your local wealthfare pulling anarchists .
This is slashdot , damnit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a brand.
It has the word wiki and leak in it making it both feel trustable and sensational.
It is their business and marketingplan.
They keep sending out sensationalist stories out to the world.
On the other end they are giving talks about free speech.
Just a bunch of kids that found out a way to make money.
I don't trust them, I don't read them, I don't watch them, I don't care where their servers are.
They are an oxymoron like the your local wealthfare pulling anarchists.
This is slashdot, damnit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31599908</id>
	<title>Re:Impeach George Bush!!!</title>
	<author>Graham J - XVI</author>
	<datestamp>1269454080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not that there wasn't already enough proof...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that there was n't already enough proof.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that there wasn't already enough proof...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31603572</id>
	<title>Re:What do they expect?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269424800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They knew something would happen, otherwise they wouldn't have talked about revealing before revealing. Then they write up a big article about the oppressive behavior they experienced.</p><p>This wasn't about the footage they were revealing at all. It was entirely about playing poke the bear with the government in order to get a reaction. I'm not sure what their exact objective was, but I can basically see what they were trying to do from their behavior. They knew something like this would happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They knew something would happen , otherwise they would n't have talked about revealing before revealing .
Then they write up a big article about the oppressive behavior they experienced.This was n't about the footage they were revealing at all .
It was entirely about playing poke the bear with the government in order to get a reaction .
I 'm not sure what their exact objective was , but I can basically see what they were trying to do from their behavior .
They knew something like this would happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They knew something would happen, otherwise they wouldn't have talked about revealing before revealing.
Then they write up a big article about the oppressive behavior they experienced.This wasn't about the footage they were revealing at all.
It was entirely about playing poke the bear with the government in order to get a reaction.
I'm not sure what their exact objective was, but I can basically see what they were trying to do from their behavior.
They knew something like this would happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598558</id>
	<title>Don't announce.  Just DO</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1269449160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you've got some hot information that you know governments will try to suppress, why the heck would you give them a few weeks to do so?  Just put the information out right away; then it's too late to be effectively suppressed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 've got some hot information that you know governments will try to suppress , why the heck would you give them a few weeks to do so ?
Just put the information out right away ; then it 's too late to be effectively suppressed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you've got some hot information that you know governments will try to suppress, why the heck would you give them a few weeks to do so?
Just put the information out right away; then it's too late to be effectively suppressed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598280</id>
	<title>Press, Press, Pull Nyuk Nyuk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269448200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes and the real story here is that we all know that members of the "National Press Club" are never ever terrorist scumbags. I mean, he/she had an id card, a camera and an official looking badge, that should be enough to satisfy even the most doubting believers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes and the real story here is that we all know that members of the " National Press Club " are never ever terrorist scumbags .
I mean , he/she had an id card , a camera and an official looking badge , that should be enough to satisfy even the most doubting believers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes and the real story here is that we all know that members of the "National Press Club" are never ever terrorist scumbags.
I mean, he/she had an id card, a camera and an official looking badge, that should be enough to satisfy even the most doubting believers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31600174</id>
	<title>More info..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269454980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>A little bit of digging around on the wikileaks twitter reveals the following message:

"Finally cracked the encryption to US military  video in which journalists, among others, are shot. Thanks to all who donated $/CPUs."

I'm surprised by the level of animosity shown by<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. commentators towards wikileaks. Any idea that they are politically motivated is bizarre.

Wikileaks doesn't censor content, or choose what to post. Full Stop. They've taken this idea very seriously and i applaud them for it - to the point where they leaked their own *anonymous* donor list because someone got hold of it and submitted it back to them. I'm  sure that didn't help their fund raising program. (Turns out staff emailed them all without hiding each others addies)

The point is that wikileaks doesn't pass judgment on what it's sent. It simply acts as a platform for the dissemination of information that citizens feel should be out there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A little bit of digging around on the wikileaks twitter reveals the following message : " Finally cracked the encryption to US military video in which journalists , among others , are shot .
Thanks to all who donated $ /CPUs .
" I 'm surprised by the level of animosity shown by / .
commentators towards wikileaks .
Any idea that they are politically motivated is bizarre .
Wikileaks does n't censor content , or choose what to post .
Full Stop .
They 've taken this idea very seriously and i applaud them for it - to the point where they leaked their own * anonymous * donor list because someone got hold of it and submitted it back to them .
I 'm sure that did n't help their fund raising program .
( Turns out staff emailed them all without hiding each others addies ) The point is that wikileaks does n't pass judgment on what it 's sent .
It simply acts as a platform for the dissemination of information that citizens feel should be out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A little bit of digging around on the wikileaks twitter reveals the following message:

"Finally cracked the encryption to US military  video in which journalists, among others, are shot.
Thanks to all who donated $/CPUs.
"

I'm surprised by the level of animosity shown by /.
commentators towards wikileaks.
Any idea that they are politically motivated is bizarre.
Wikileaks doesn't censor content, or choose what to post.
Full Stop.
They've taken this idea very seriously and i applaud them for it - to the point where they leaked their own *anonymous* donor list because someone got hold of it and submitted it back to them.
I'm  sure that didn't help their fund raising program.
(Turns out staff emailed them all without hiding each others addies)

The point is that wikileaks doesn't pass judgment on what it's sent.
It simply acts as a platform for the dissemination of information that citizens feel should be out there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31600858</id>
	<title>Twitter needs PKI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269457620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Twitter needs a way to verify that tweets are legitimate.  How long before {Government Agency of Any Country} simply hacks the account of {anyone with anything to say} and retracts anything that might be damning?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Twitter needs a way to verify that tweets are legitimate .
How long before { Government Agency of Any Country } simply hacks the account of { anyone with anything to say } and retracts anything that might be damning ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Twitter needs a way to verify that tweets are legitimate.
How long before {Government Agency of Any Country} simply hacks the account of {anyone with anything to say} and retracts anything that might be damning?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31600342</id>
	<title>Politically Motivated?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269455640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Finally cracked the encryption to US military  video in which journalists, among others, are shot. Thanks to all who donated $/CPUs"

-wikileaks twitter</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Finally cracked the encryption to US military video in which journalists , among others , are shot .
Thanks to all who donated $ /CPUs " -wikileaks twitter</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Finally cracked the encryption to US military  video in which journalists, among others, are shot.
Thanks to all who donated $/CPUs"

-wikileaks twitter</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31605954</id>
	<title>By The Pricking Of My Thumbs...</title>
	<author>IonOtter</author>
	<datestamp>1269438120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I cannot call up the Gawker article unless I go through a proxy outside the US.  I can get to gawker.com, but I cannot call up the article.  <a href="http://bit.ly/cOqlAU" title="bit.ly">http://bit.ly/cOqlAU</a> [bit.ly]</p><p>Looking at the source code, I don't even get an HTML header.  It's completely blank.  Zip.  Nada.  I can look at any other Gawker article except that one.</p><p>Also, the Norwegian newspaper, www.skup.no is down hard.  I tried via proxy, no joy.  I checked out www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com and sure enough, it's dead.</p><p>Something wicked this way comes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can not call up the Gawker article unless I go through a proxy outside the US .
I can get to gawker.com , but I can not call up the article .
http : //bit.ly/cOqlAU [ bit.ly ] Looking at the source code , I do n't even get an HTML header .
It 's completely blank .
Zip. Nada .
I can look at any other Gawker article except that one.Also , the Norwegian newspaper , www.skup.no is down hard .
I tried via proxy , no joy .
I checked out www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com and sure enough , it 's dead.Something wicked this way comes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I cannot call up the Gawker article unless I go through a proxy outside the US.
I can get to gawker.com, but I cannot call up the article.
http://bit.ly/cOqlAU [bit.ly]Looking at the source code, I don't even get an HTML header.
It's completely blank.
Zip.  Nada.
I can look at any other Gawker article except that one.Also, the Norwegian newspaper, www.skup.no is down hard.
I tried via proxy, no joy.
I checked out www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com and sure enough, it's dead.Something wicked this way comes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31599800</id>
	<title>Re:Like a backseat driver...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269453720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."
-- <a href="http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0007463/" title="imdb.com">Col. Jessup</a> [imdb.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide , and then questions the manner in which I provide it .
I would rather you just said thank you , and went on your way , Otherwise , I suggest you pick up a weapon , and stand a post .
Either way , I do n't give a damn what you think you are entitled to .
" -- Col. Jessup [ imdb.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it.
I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post.
Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.
"
-- Col. Jessup [imdb.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598096</id>
	<title>Like a backseat driver...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269447480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's easy to decry from the position of luxury afforded by enjoyed freedoms.

"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." - Winston Churchill</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's easy to decry from the position of luxury afforded by enjoyed freedoms .
" We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm .
" - Winston Churchill</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's easy to decry from the position of luxury afforded by enjoyed freedoms.
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
" - Winston Churchill</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31601104</id>
	<title>Re:Gestapo Treatment?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269458520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Ignoring the Godwin in the headline.</i></p><p>You didn't do that ignoring bit right...</p><p><i>What do you think would have happened to someone in 1938ish Germany who had similar film and accusations regarding the Spanish civil war?<br>Would it have ended with monitoring? </i></p><p>So you compare America to Germany of 1938, and are bitching that the headline contains the word 'gestapo'?!  What a hypocrit.  PS, your post is now Godwined.</p><p><i>Fuck Wikileaks and their hyperbole.<br>Fuck them right in the ear. </i></p><p>Godwin and a troll...<br>3/3 fail</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ignoring the Godwin in the headline.You did n't do that ignoring bit right...What do you think would have happened to someone in 1938ish Germany who had similar film and accusations regarding the Spanish civil war ? Would it have ended with monitoring ?
So you compare America to Germany of 1938 , and are bitching that the headline contains the word 'gestapo ' ? !
What a hypocrit .
PS , your post is now Godwined.Fuck Wikileaks and their hyperbole.Fuck them right in the ear .
Godwin and a troll...3/3 fail</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ignoring the Godwin in the headline.You didn't do that ignoring bit right...What do you think would have happened to someone in 1938ish Germany who had similar film and accusations regarding the Spanish civil war?Would it have ended with monitoring?
So you compare America to Germany of 1938, and are bitching that the headline contains the word 'gestapo'?!
What a hypocrit.
PS, your post is now Godwined.Fuck Wikileaks and their hyperbole.Fuck them right in the ear.
Godwin and a troll...3/3 fail</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31607894</id>
	<title>Like an armchair philosopher...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269507660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Winston was a wonderful fellow, yeah, yeah.</p><p>It's easy to justify violence with quotes from memorable figures.</p><p>Jesus also said "the poor will always be with us" - so who am I to counter his wisdom with my useless charity?</p><p>Here's a *pithy* little retort to counter yours....</p><p>We sleep soundly in our beds because cowards sit 5000 miles from innocent civilians and bomb the living crap out of wedding parties and schools using remote-controlled drones to drop bombs on their impoverished alien heads, as if it were merely an XBOX shoot-em-up video game.</p><p>I'm quite happy that whistleblowers and wikileaks help keep the reins on the potential abuse and retain at least a little common morality within our armed forces.</p><p>Of course, it's a crying shame that Rumsfeld and Cheney and crew have all walked away from first-class war crimes (so far), but I suppose there will be some escape the net from time to time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Winston was a wonderful fellow , yeah , yeah.It 's easy to justify violence with quotes from memorable figures.Jesus also said " the poor will always be with us " - so who am I to counter his wisdom with my useless charity ? Here 's a * pithy * little retort to counter yours....We sleep soundly in our beds because cowards sit 5000 miles from innocent civilians and bomb the living crap out of wedding parties and schools using remote-controlled drones to drop bombs on their impoverished alien heads , as if it were merely an XBOX shoot-em-up video game.I 'm quite happy that whistleblowers and wikileaks help keep the reins on the potential abuse and retain at least a little common morality within our armed forces.Of course , it 's a crying shame that Rumsfeld and Cheney and crew have all walked away from first-class war crimes ( so far ) , but I suppose there will be some escape the net from time to time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Winston was a wonderful fellow, yeah, yeah.It's easy to justify violence with quotes from memorable figures.Jesus also said "the poor will always be with us" - so who am I to counter his wisdom with my useless charity?Here's a *pithy* little retort to counter yours....We sleep soundly in our beds because cowards sit 5000 miles from innocent civilians and bomb the living crap out of wedding parties and schools using remote-controlled drones to drop bombs on their impoverished alien heads, as if it were merely an XBOX shoot-em-up video game.I'm quite happy that whistleblowers and wikileaks help keep the reins on the potential abuse and retain at least a little common morality within our armed forces.Of course, it's a crying shame that Rumsfeld and Cheney and crew have all walked away from first-class war crimes (so far), but I suppose there will be some escape the net from time to time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31602896</id>
	<title>Re:Don't announce. Just DO</title>
	<author>R3d M3rcury</author>
	<datestamp>1269422220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you've got some hot information that you know governments will try to suppress, why the heck would you give them a few weeks to do so?</p></div><p>Well, a few reasons come to mind:</p><ol> <li>The information may be dangerously time-sensitive to those who provided it.  For example, if it is an image of a building, that means that troops may be in the area.  If you give it a few weeks, the troops will be gone and it may be safe to show the footage.</li><li>While I love my blogs and such, the Mainstream Media is really the way to get information out.  But they need some time to get everything together.  Giving them some notice means a better chance that reporters will be allocated.</li><li>Something like this will generate a lot of publicity for WikiLeaks which survives on donations.  Assuming it's true, it's worthwhile to organize how you're going to present the information to generate the most publicity possible for your organization.</li></ol></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 've got some hot information that you know governments will try to suppress , why the heck would you give them a few weeks to do so ? Well , a few reasons come to mind : The information may be dangerously time-sensitive to those who provided it .
For example , if it is an image of a building , that means that troops may be in the area .
If you give it a few weeks , the troops will be gone and it may be safe to show the footage.While I love my blogs and such , the Mainstream Media is really the way to get information out .
But they need some time to get everything together .
Giving them some notice means a better chance that reporters will be allocated.Something like this will generate a lot of publicity for WikiLeaks which survives on donations .
Assuming it 's true , it 's worthwhile to organize how you 're going to present the information to generate the most publicity possible for your organization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you've got some hot information that you know governments will try to suppress, why the heck would you give them a few weeks to do so?Well, a few reasons come to mind: The information may be dangerously time-sensitive to those who provided it.
For example, if it is an image of a building, that means that troops may be in the area.
If you give it a few weeks, the troops will be gone and it may be safe to show the footage.While I love my blogs and such, the Mainstream Media is really the way to get information out.
But they need some time to get everything together.
Giving them some notice means a better chance that reporters will be allocated.Something like this will generate a lot of publicity for WikiLeaks which survives on donations.
Assuming it's true, it's worthwhile to organize how you're going to present the information to generate the most publicity possible for your organization.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31603850</id>
	<title>Re:Like a backseat driver...</title>
	<author>dargaud</author>
	<datestamp>1269425940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself [...]" -- Col. Jessup</p></div><p>Yeah, another fucker who considers himself above the law. Good thing this particular one only exists in a movie.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself [ ... ] " -- Col. JessupYeah , another fucker who considers himself above the law .
Good thing this particular one only exists in a movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself [...]" -- Col. JessupYeah, another fucker who considers himself above the law.
Good thing this particular one only exists in a movie.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31599800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31599454</id>
	<title>Message to the government of the USA</title>
	<author>Alain Williams</author>
	<datestamp>1269452340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you are going to feel embarrassed when someone exposes things that you have done, the solution is quite simple: don't do bad things.<p>
It is not just the USA - look at how Israel has been caught forging British passports so that it could <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8582518.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">a Hamas leader</a> [bbc.co.uk]. Governments do dirty deeds and then pretend that they did not. The world would be a better place if governments where run by honest, decent people - from top to bottom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are going to feel embarrassed when someone exposes things that you have done , the solution is quite simple : do n't do bad things .
It is not just the USA - look at how Israel has been caught forging British passports so that it could a Hamas leader [ bbc.co.uk ] .
Governments do dirty deeds and then pretend that they did not .
The world would be a better place if governments where run by honest , decent people - from top to bottom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are going to feel embarrassed when someone exposes things that you have done, the solution is quite simple: don't do bad things.
It is not just the USA - look at how Israel has been caught forging British passports so that it could a Hamas leader [bbc.co.uk].
Governments do dirty deeds and then pretend that they did not.
The world would be a better place if governments where run by honest, decent people - from top to bottom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31599772</id>
	<title>UPDATE:video very likely to be afghanistan bombing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269453540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Check out these older tweets from wikileaks:</p><p>http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/7530875613</p><p>http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/9412020034</p><p>It has to be a video about a heavy US airstrike in Afghanistan, dated May 7, where 97 civilians died.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Check out these older tweets from wikileaks : http : //twitter.com/wikileaks/status/7530875613http : //twitter.com/wikileaks/status/9412020034It has to be a video about a heavy US airstrike in Afghanistan , dated May 7 , where 97 civilians died .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check out these older tweets from wikileaks:http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/7530875613http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/9412020034It has to be a video about a heavy US airstrike in Afghanistan, dated May 7, where 97 civilians died.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598502</id>
	<title>Single point of failure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269448980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Being the only one (or one of very few) people who have this material is dangerous for the reasons mentioned. Posting it on usenet and various p2p networks ASAP should do the tric: then they can be sure noone, not themselves, not the US government, not even scientology, could get it offline anymore, so it would be useless to harrass this one person about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Being the only one ( or one of very few ) people who have this material is dangerous for the reasons mentioned .
Posting it on usenet and various p2p networks ASAP should do the tric : then they can be sure noone , not themselves , not the US government , not even scientology , could get it offline anymore , so it would be useless to harrass this one person about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being the only one (or one of very few) people who have this material is dangerous for the reasons mentioned.
Posting it on usenet and various p2p networks ASAP should do the tric: then they can be sure noone, not themselves, not the US government, not even scientology, could get it offline anymore, so it would be useless to harrass this one person about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598114</id>
	<title>UPDATE: tweet about disclosure removed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269447600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The original tweet has been removed.</p><p>This was the original text:</p><p>"WikiLeaks to reveal Pentagon murder-coverup at US National Press Club, Apr 5, 9am; contact press-club@sunshinepress.org     10:43 PM Mar 21st   via bit.ly"</p><p>Two possibilities: they're planning immediate release, or they decided to give up with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The original tweet has been removed.This was the original text : " WikiLeaks to reveal Pentagon murder-coverup at US National Press Club , Apr 5 , 9am ; contact press-club @ sunshinepress.org 10 : 43 PM Mar 21st via bit.ly " Two possibilities : they 're planning immediate release , or they decided to give up with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The original tweet has been removed.This was the original text:"WikiLeaks to reveal Pentagon murder-coverup at US National Press Club, Apr 5, 9am; contact press-club@sunshinepress.org     10:43 PM Mar 21st   via bit.ly"Two possibilities: they're planning immediate release, or they decided to give up with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31605108</id>
	<title>Re:What do they expect?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269432120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's a grainy black and white video of someone launching a missile or a laser-guided bomb and hitting something.</p></div><p>Those videos are low-quality, but I reckon you could tell the difference between an adult and a child in the picture.  If the video shows a missile streaking into a yard filled with children<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... yeah, I want that leaked, along with the name of whoever launched it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a grainy black and white video of someone launching a missile or a laser-guided bomb and hitting something.Those videos are low-quality , but I reckon you could tell the difference between an adult and a child in the picture .
If the video shows a missile streaking into a yard filled with children ... yeah , I want that leaked , along with the name of whoever launched it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a grainy black and white video of someone launching a missile or a laser-guided bomb and hitting something.Those videos are low-quality, but I reckon you could tell the difference between an adult and a child in the picture.
If the video shows a missile streaking into a yard filled with children ... yeah, I want that leaked, along with the name of whoever launched it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31600620</id>
	<title>Re:What do they expect?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269456660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well said, Sir!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well said , Sir !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well said, Sir!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598768</id>
	<title>Re:What do they expect?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269449820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What I don't expect we will see is "TERMINATED: Abdul Sayyid al-Derka HEADSHOT +50 points" pop up on the screen.</i></p><p>Though the CIA would probably get a lot more recruits from Slashdot if it did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I do n't expect we will see is " TERMINATED : Abdul Sayyid al-Derka HEADSHOT + 50 points " pop up on the screen.Though the CIA would probably get a lot more recruits from Slashdot if it did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I don't expect we will see is "TERMINATED: Abdul Sayyid al-Derka HEADSHOT +50 points" pop up on the screen.Though the CIA would probably get a lot more recruits from Slashdot if it did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598128</id>
	<title>US Intel doc on Wikileaks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269447600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Out of curiosity I decided to take  a look at what wikileaks had to offer (never been there before), and I ended up on the PDF purportedly from the Army Counter Intelligence center (*) that describes the Wikileak operation and how it could be ground into the dust.</p><p>Within that document is a table (on page 8) that lists equipment deployment in Iraq.  The NSN column seems to be listing some sort of ID number like 581001X111125.  But then you get entries like "1.24001E+12".  That to me looks like Excel converted the data from a string to a floating point format - something that probably belongs more on the Daily WTF than wikileaks!</p><p>* The document itself refers to the possibility of posting "fake" documents to wikileaks in order to spread disinformation - so now my head is spinning as I don't know what to believe</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Out of curiosity I decided to take a look at what wikileaks had to offer ( never been there before ) , and I ended up on the PDF purportedly from the Army Counter Intelligence center ( * ) that describes the Wikileak operation and how it could be ground into the dust.Within that document is a table ( on page 8 ) that lists equipment deployment in Iraq .
The NSN column seems to be listing some sort of ID number like 581001X111125 .
But then you get entries like " 1.24001E + 12 " .
That to me looks like Excel converted the data from a string to a floating point format - something that probably belongs more on the Daily WTF than wikileaks !
* The document itself refers to the possibility of posting " fake " documents to wikileaks in order to spread disinformation - so now my head is spinning as I do n't know what to believe</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Out of curiosity I decided to take  a look at what wikileaks had to offer (never been there before), and I ended up on the PDF purportedly from the Army Counter Intelligence center (*) that describes the Wikileak operation and how it could be ground into the dust.Within that document is a table (on page 8) that lists equipment deployment in Iraq.
The NSN column seems to be listing some sort of ID number like 581001X111125.
But then you get entries like "1.24001E+12".
That to me looks like Excel converted the data from a string to a floating point format - something that probably belongs more on the Daily WTF than wikileaks!
* The document itself refers to the possibility of posting "fake" documents to wikileaks in order to spread disinformation - so now my head is spinning as I don't know what to believe</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598858</id>
	<title>Gestapo Treatment?</title>
	<author>HornWumpus</author>
	<datestamp>1269450060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Ignoring the Godwin in the headline.
</p><p>
What do you think would have happened to someone in 1938ish Germany who had similar film and accusations regarding the Spanish civil war?
</p><p>
Would it have ended with monitoring?
</p><p>
Fuck Wikileaks and their hyperbole.
</p><p>
Fuck them right in the ear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ignoring the Godwin in the headline .
What do you think would have happened to someone in 1938ish Germany who had similar film and accusations regarding the Spanish civil war ?
Would it have ended with monitoring ?
Fuck Wikileaks and their hyperbole .
Fuck them right in the ear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Ignoring the Godwin in the headline.
What do you think would have happened to someone in 1938ish Germany who had similar film and accusations regarding the Spanish civil war?
Would it have ended with monitoring?
Fuck Wikileaks and their hyperbole.
Fuck them right in the ear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31603208</id>
	<title>Re:Like a backseat driver...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269423420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That quote is entirely true, but your use of it is hardly conclusive.</p><p>Should we 'sleep soundly in our beds' when those same 'rough men' stand ready to do whatever they damn well please?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That quote is entirely true , but your use of it is hardly conclusive.Should we 'sleep soundly in our beds ' when those same 'rough men ' stand ready to do whatever they damn well please ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That quote is entirely true, but your use of it is hardly conclusive.Should we 'sleep soundly in our beds' when those same 'rough men' stand ready to do whatever they damn well please?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31611996</id>
	<title>Message to the PEOPLE of the USA: Obama Nation?</title>
	<author>PulentoMAC</author>
	<datestamp>1269536520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet more proof that LOWKEY's song has it spot on!:</p><p><b>LOWKEY - OBAMA NATION (OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO)</b><br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4OI0GUCI\_A" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4OI0GUCI\_A</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet more proof that LOWKEY 's song has it spot on !
: LOWKEY - OBAMA NATION ( OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO ) http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = z4OI0GUCI \ _A [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet more proof that LOWKEY's song has it spot on!
:LOWKEY - OBAMA NATION (OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4OI0GUCI\_A [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598174</id>
	<title>What do they expect?</title>
	<author>tnk1</author>
	<datestamp>1269447780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are decrypting or gaining access to decrypted classified video, what do they expect is going to happen?  Even if the video shows things that the government doesn't want us to see, I'd be a little disturbed if they did nothing about the breach of security.  It's like saying that if a guy knocks over a bank with my money in it, it's okay for him to have done it as long as he only took the money from the mobsters who use the bank.  Determining that footage "shows bad things" is not a security determination, it's a political determination.  I don't want security personnel making value judgments about the data that is entrusted to their care.  If it is classified, they need to find out who the leak is and deal with it.</p><p>To be honest, while I think its a good thing that cover-up data can come out, I worry a little that throwing raw data out there with interpretations like "murder-coverup" is just as political an act as covering it up, not to mention a little sensationalistic.  I mean, if its airstrike footage, it's not like they brought the aircraft camera into the room to film the alleged conspirators rubbing their hands together and saying "terminate them!".  It's a grainy black and white video of someone launching a missile or a laser-guided bomb and hitting something.  Maybe there is some date/time or even location data in the video.  What I don't expect we will see is "TERMINATED: Abdul Sayyid al-Derka HEADSHOT +50 points" pop up on the screen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are decrypting or gaining access to decrypted classified video , what do they expect is going to happen ?
Even if the video shows things that the government does n't want us to see , I 'd be a little disturbed if they did nothing about the breach of security .
It 's like saying that if a guy knocks over a bank with my money in it , it 's okay for him to have done it as long as he only took the money from the mobsters who use the bank .
Determining that footage " shows bad things " is not a security determination , it 's a political determination .
I do n't want security personnel making value judgments about the data that is entrusted to their care .
If it is classified , they need to find out who the leak is and deal with it.To be honest , while I think its a good thing that cover-up data can come out , I worry a little that throwing raw data out there with interpretations like " murder-coverup " is just as political an act as covering it up , not to mention a little sensationalistic .
I mean , if its airstrike footage , it 's not like they brought the aircraft camera into the room to film the alleged conspirators rubbing their hands together and saying " terminate them ! " .
It 's a grainy black and white video of someone launching a missile or a laser-guided bomb and hitting something .
Maybe there is some date/time or even location data in the video .
What I do n't expect we will see is " TERMINATED : Abdul Sayyid al-Derka HEADSHOT + 50 points " pop up on the screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are decrypting or gaining access to decrypted classified video, what do they expect is going to happen?
Even if the video shows things that the government doesn't want us to see, I'd be a little disturbed if they did nothing about the breach of security.
It's like saying that if a guy knocks over a bank with my money in it, it's okay for him to have done it as long as he only took the money from the mobsters who use the bank.
Determining that footage "shows bad things" is not a security determination, it's a political determination.
I don't want security personnel making value judgments about the data that is entrusted to their care.
If it is classified, they need to find out who the leak is and deal with it.To be honest, while I think its a good thing that cover-up data can come out, I worry a little that throwing raw data out there with interpretations like "murder-coverup" is just as political an act as covering it up, not to mention a little sensationalistic.
I mean, if its airstrike footage, it's not like they brought the aircraft camera into the room to film the alleged conspirators rubbing their hands together and saying "terminate them!".
It's a grainy black and white video of someone launching a missile or a laser-guided bomb and hitting something.
Maybe there is some date/time or even location data in the video.
What I don't expect we will see is "TERMINATED: Abdul Sayyid al-Derka HEADSHOT +50 points" pop up on the screen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31599378</id>
	<title>Re:What do they expect?</title>
	<author>tnk1</author>
	<datestamp>1269452040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Freedom of Speech is applicable to talking about the video, should you happen to see it, but not to it's release.</p><p>As for Freedom of the Press, first of all, there are almost certainly National Security implications of the release of a recent military operation.  That means that there is likely a judicial precedent for exception to Freedom of the Press on that account.</p><p>However, even if there was not an exception for National Security, Wikileaks would only be protected as an entity if they merely published the video.  That does not mean that they cannot be investigated to see if they actually obtained or conspired to obtain the video.</p><p>If their personnel directly broke into an air base and stole the video, they could go to jail for whatever crime that is (theft, trespassing).</p><p>If they provided means (resources, payment, etc.) to obtain the video with the leaker ahead of time, as opposed to merely receiving it, they would be liable for conspiracy to commit one of the broken laws.  Freedom of the Press does not allow reporters to become investigators immune from the law.  They may print anything but libel, but they can't break other laws to get the material.</p><p>Make no mistake, the leaker of this video is likely eligible to go to jail.  The question is whether Wikileaks is a party to the actual leak or just the publisher.  I really have no patience for Wikileaks if they expected to publish this and not be investigated.  If they are going to be in this business, they need to understand the implications.  They may be in the right, but the US Government cannot assume that is the case with classified material.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Freedom of Speech is applicable to talking about the video , should you happen to see it , but not to it 's release.As for Freedom of the Press , first of all , there are almost certainly National Security implications of the release of a recent military operation .
That means that there is likely a judicial precedent for exception to Freedom of the Press on that account.However , even if there was not an exception for National Security , Wikileaks would only be protected as an entity if they merely published the video .
That does not mean that they can not be investigated to see if they actually obtained or conspired to obtain the video.If their personnel directly broke into an air base and stole the video , they could go to jail for whatever crime that is ( theft , trespassing ) .If they provided means ( resources , payment , etc .
) to obtain the video with the leaker ahead of time , as opposed to merely receiving it , they would be liable for conspiracy to commit one of the broken laws .
Freedom of the Press does not allow reporters to become investigators immune from the law .
They may print anything but libel , but they ca n't break other laws to get the material.Make no mistake , the leaker of this video is likely eligible to go to jail .
The question is whether Wikileaks is a party to the actual leak or just the publisher .
I really have no patience for Wikileaks if they expected to publish this and not be investigated .
If they are going to be in this business , they need to understand the implications .
They may be in the right , but the US Government can not assume that is the case with classified material .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Freedom of Speech is applicable to talking about the video, should you happen to see it, but not to it's release.As for Freedom of the Press, first of all, there are almost certainly National Security implications of the release of a recent military operation.
That means that there is likely a judicial precedent for exception to Freedom of the Press on that account.However, even if there was not an exception for National Security, Wikileaks would only be protected as an entity if they merely published the video.
That does not mean that they cannot be investigated to see if they actually obtained or conspired to obtain the video.If their personnel directly broke into an air base and stole the video, they could go to jail for whatever crime that is (theft, trespassing).If they provided means (resources, payment, etc.
) to obtain the video with the leaker ahead of time, as opposed to merely receiving it, they would be liable for conspiracy to commit one of the broken laws.
Freedom of the Press does not allow reporters to become investigators immune from the law.
They may print anything but libel, but they can't break other laws to get the material.Make no mistake, the leaker of this video is likely eligible to go to jail.
The question is whether Wikileaks is a party to the actual leak or just the publisher.
I really have no patience for Wikileaks if they expected to publish this and not be investigated.
If they are going to be in this business, they need to understand the implications.
They may be in the right, but the US Government cannot assume that is the case with classified material.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31599582</id>
	<title>Re:Like a backseat driver...</title>
	<author>unbug</author>
	<datestamp>1269452820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/List\_of\_misquotations" title="wikiquote.org">http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/List\_of\_misquotations</a> [wikiquote.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikiquote.org/wiki/List \ _of \ _misquotations [ wikiquote.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/List\_of\_misquotations [wikiquote.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598096</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1321224_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31603858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1321224_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31604924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1321224_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31602896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1321224_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31599378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1321224_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1321224_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31600058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1321224_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31600656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1321224_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31599908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1321224_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1321224_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31603850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31599800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1321224_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31607894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1321224_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1321224_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31603184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1321224_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31601154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1321224_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31599314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1321224_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31599998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1321224_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31601104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1321224_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31603572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1321224_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31605108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1321224_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31600620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1321224_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31606532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1321224_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31599582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1321224_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31603208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1321224.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31597766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1321224.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31601154
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1321224.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31599454
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1321224.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31600058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31599998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31599800
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31603850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31607894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31599582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31603208
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1321224.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598098
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1321224.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31601104
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1321224.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31602896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1321224.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31599908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31604924
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1321224.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31597818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1321224.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31603858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31605108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598782
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31599378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31606532
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31599314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31600656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31598978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31603572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31600620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1321224.31603184
</commentlist>
</conversation>
