<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_05_29_0114236</id>
	<title>Wikipedia Bans Church of Scientology</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1243604940000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:cmetz@theregister.com" rel="nofollow">El Reg</a> writes <i>"Showing a new-found resolve to crack down on self-serving edits, Wikipedia has <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/29/wikipedia\_bans\_scientology/">banned contributions from all IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology</a>. According to Wikipedia administrators, this marks the first time such a high-profile organization has been banished for allegedly pushing its own agenda on the 'free encyclopedia anyone can edit.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>El Reg writes " Showing a new-found resolve to crack down on self-serving edits , Wikipedia has banned contributions from all IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology .
According to Wikipedia administrators , this marks the first time such a high-profile organization has been banished for allegedly pushing its own agenda on the 'free encyclopedia anyone can edit .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>El Reg writes "Showing a new-found resolve to crack down on self-serving edits, Wikipedia has banned contributions from all IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology.
According to Wikipedia administrators, this marks the first time such a high-profile organization has been banished for allegedly pushing its own agenda on the 'free encyclopedia anyone can edit.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137465</id>
	<title>So funny....</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1243605360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, seriously this is awesome, I think it is about time that wiki at least take their posting scheme a little more seriously then let any one post about anything! Finally we can hear the real story about why the alien came down to our planet, and when we are all supposed to really go back to Zork!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , seriously this is awesome , I think it is about time that wiki at least take their posting scheme a little more seriously then let any one post about anything !
Finally we can hear the real story about why the alien came down to our planet , and when we are all supposed to really go back to Zork ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, seriously this is awesome, I think it is about time that wiki at least take their posting scheme a little more seriously then let any one post about anything!
Finally we can hear the real story about why the alien came down to our planet, and when we are all supposed to really go back to Zork!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28138045</id>
	<title>Fuck Scientology</title>
	<author>Legion303</author>
	<datestamp>1243608360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the other hand, fuck Wikipedia.</p><p>Who to root for?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , fuck Wikipedia.Who to root for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, fuck Wikipedia.Who to root for?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28316521</id>
	<title>That's awesome</title>
	<author>tennisChamp</author>
	<datestamp>1244817840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't believe all the crazy news that comes out about Scientology.  Even this post will probably be noticed by some Scientology analysts and my IP will be logged and before you know it I'll be a convert.

I just heard that John Travolta, a member of Scientology, admitted his son was autistic which is a big no-no in Scientology.  I wonder what kind of backlash he could expect.

source: <a href="http://www.thevelvethottub.com/celebrity-gossip/Scientology/" title="thevelvethottub.com" rel="nofollow">Scientology gossip</a> [thevelvethottub.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe all the crazy news that comes out about Scientology .
Even this post will probably be noticed by some Scientology analysts and my IP will be logged and before you know it I 'll be a convert .
I just heard that John Travolta , a member of Scientology , admitted his son was autistic which is a big no-no in Scientology .
I wonder what kind of backlash he could expect .
source : Scientology gossip [ thevelvethottub.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe all the crazy news that comes out about Scientology.
Even this post will probably be noticed by some Scientology analysts and my IP will be logged and before you know it I'll be a convert.
I just heard that John Travolta, a member of Scientology, admitted his son was autistic which is a big no-no in Scientology.
I wonder what kind of backlash he could expect.
source: Scientology gossip [thevelvethottub.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136797</id>
	<title>Re:Fine by me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243600140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As much as I despise Scientology, I don't see why their cult should be singled out for direct criticisms in the opening paragraphs of the article, (e.g "cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members").</p> </div><p>...because it's true?</p><p>Look, contrary to what it seems, we're not stuck in a postmodern world of political correctness where everything isn't just shades of gray but in fact the same shade of gray.</p><p>Some things ARE true. Some people, organizations, parties, whatever have you ARE better or worse than others. Wikipedia doesn't have an opinion, but that doesn't mean they can't report FACTS.</p><p>Put another way: the article on Al Capone states that he was a gangster right in the first sentence. The article on George Washington doesn't. Would anyone in their right mind (including you) say "as much as I despise Al Capone, I don't see why he should be singled out for direct criticisms in the opening paragraphs of the article"?</p><p>Of course not. In fact, I'm pretty sure you'd agree that the whole idea is ridiculous: not because Wikipedia has an agenda to push concerning Capone and Washington, but rather because, well, Capone WAS a gangster, and Washington WASN'T.</p><p>There's lots of bad things that can be said about most churches and cults. Nevertheless, Scientology is worse than most, and significantly worse for that matter, and Wikipedia is empathically NOT about treating everyone the same in the interest of being fair and balanced.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as I despise Scientology , I do n't see why their cult should be singled out for direct criticisms in the opening paragraphs of the article , ( e.g " cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members " ) .
...because it 's true ? Look , contrary to what it seems , we 're not stuck in a postmodern world of political correctness where everything is n't just shades of gray but in fact the same shade of gray.Some things ARE true .
Some people , organizations , parties , whatever have you ARE better or worse than others .
Wikipedia does n't have an opinion , but that does n't mean they ca n't report FACTS.Put another way : the article on Al Capone states that he was a gangster right in the first sentence .
The article on George Washington does n't .
Would anyone in their right mind ( including you ) say " as much as I despise Al Capone , I do n't see why he should be singled out for direct criticisms in the opening paragraphs of the article " ? Of course not .
In fact , I 'm pretty sure you 'd agree that the whole idea is ridiculous : not because Wikipedia has an agenda to push concerning Capone and Washington , but rather because , well , Capone WAS a gangster , and Washington WAS N'T.There 's lots of bad things that can be said about most churches and cults .
Nevertheless , Scientology is worse than most , and significantly worse for that matter , and Wikipedia is empathically NOT about treating everyone the same in the interest of being fair and balanced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as I despise Scientology, I don't see why their cult should be singled out for direct criticisms in the opening paragraphs of the article, (e.g "cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members").
...because it's true?Look, contrary to what it seems, we're not stuck in a postmodern world of political correctness where everything isn't just shades of gray but in fact the same shade of gray.Some things ARE true.
Some people, organizations, parties, whatever have you ARE better or worse than others.
Wikipedia doesn't have an opinion, but that doesn't mean they can't report FACTS.Put another way: the article on Al Capone states that he was a gangster right in the first sentence.
The article on George Washington doesn't.
Would anyone in their right mind (including you) say "as much as I despise Al Capone, I don't see why he should be singled out for direct criticisms in the opening paragraphs of the article"?Of course not.
In fact, I'm pretty sure you'd agree that the whole idea is ridiculous: not because Wikipedia has an agenda to push concerning Capone and Washington, but rather because, well, Capone WAS a gangster, and Washington WASN'T.There's lots of bad things that can be said about most churches and cults.
Nevertheless, Scientology is worse than most, and significantly worse for that matter, and Wikipedia is empathically NOT about treating everyone the same in the interest of being fair and balanced.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134505</id>
	<title>Re:Fine by me</title>
	<author>JohnBailey</author>
	<datestamp>1243529700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As much as I despise Scientology, I don't see why their cult should be singled out for direct criticisms in the opening paragraphs of the article, (e.g "cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members").</p></div><p>Ok.. How about "A bunch of cults who financially defraud and abuse their members"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as I despise Scientology , I do n't see why their cult should be singled out for direct criticisms in the opening paragraphs of the article , ( e.g " cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members " ) .Ok.. How about " A bunch of cults who financially defraud and abuse their members "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as I despise Scientology, I don't see why their cult should be singled out for direct criticisms in the opening paragraphs of the article, (e.g "cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members").Ok.. How about "A bunch of cults who financially defraud and abuse their members"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137855</id>
	<title>Re:Fine by me</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1243607520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Hassan distinguishes between what he terms as destructive cults and benign cults. A destructive cult, according to Hassan, has a "pyramid-shaped authoritarian regime with a person or group of people that have dictatorial control." and "uses deception in recruiting new members." In contrast, benign cults are, according to Hassan, "any group of people who have a set of beliefs and rituals that are non-mainstream."</i></p><p>So benign cults are not a bad thing at all then?</p></div><p>Freedom of religion? No, I don't think that's a bad thing at all.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And "destructive" cult definition pretty much exactly matches Catholic church?</p></div><p>Depends a bit on how you look at it. In practice, the pope doesn't really have dictatorial control, and many catholics completely ignore him and much of his hierarchy, but in theory, the pope can dictate official doctrine, decide what's true and what isn't, and other silly things like that. The Catholic church in the middle ages would definitely count as destructive cult. Nowadays, many catholics don't take their church leaders seriously enough for that. But look at the chruch's influence in some countries, and how they use that influence (condom usage in Africa, to name a famous example), and it's clear they can be quite destructive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hassan distinguishes between what he terms as destructive cults and benign cults .
A destructive cult , according to Hassan , has a " pyramid-shaped authoritarian regime with a person or group of people that have dictatorial control .
" and " uses deception in recruiting new members .
" In contrast , benign cults are , according to Hassan , " any group of people who have a set of beliefs and rituals that are non-mainstream .
" So benign cults are not a bad thing at all then ? Freedom of religion ?
No , I do n't think that 's a bad thing at all.And " destructive " cult definition pretty much exactly matches Catholic church ? Depends a bit on how you look at it .
In practice , the pope does n't really have dictatorial control , and many catholics completely ignore him and much of his hierarchy , but in theory , the pope can dictate official doctrine , decide what 's true and what is n't , and other silly things like that .
The Catholic church in the middle ages would definitely count as destructive cult .
Nowadays , many catholics do n't take their church leaders seriously enough for that .
But look at the chruch 's influence in some countries , and how they use that influence ( condom usage in Africa , to name a famous example ) , and it 's clear they can be quite destructive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Hassan distinguishes between what he terms as destructive cults and benign cults.
A destructive cult, according to Hassan, has a "pyramid-shaped authoritarian regime with a person or group of people that have dictatorial control.
" and "uses deception in recruiting new members.
" In contrast, benign cults are, according to Hassan, "any group of people who have a set of beliefs and rituals that are non-mainstream.
"So benign cults are not a bad thing at all then?Freedom of religion?
No, I don't think that's a bad thing at all.And "destructive" cult definition pretty much exactly matches Catholic church?Depends a bit on how you look at it.
In practice, the pope doesn't really have dictatorial control, and many catholics completely ignore him and much of his hierarchy, but in theory, the pope can dictate official doctrine, decide what's true and what isn't, and other silly things like that.
The Catholic church in the middle ages would definitely count as destructive cult.
Nowadays, many catholics don't take their church leaders seriously enough for that.
But look at the chruch's influence in some countries, and how they use that influence (condom usage in Africa, to name a famous example), and it's clear they can be quite destructive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28143339</id>
	<title>Re:What Science?</title>
	<author>supersloshy</author>
	<datestamp>1243589400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Last time I checked, "Scientology" wasn't really a word (even though it technically is). Heck they even made fun of it on The Suite Life of Zack and Cody once, when London said that she was really good at scientology or something. Thats enough to show how much people dislike it; they don't even recognize that its a real religion sometimes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Last time I checked , " Scientology " was n't really a word ( even though it technically is ) .
Heck they even made fun of it on The Suite Life of Zack and Cody once , when London said that she was really good at scientology or something .
Thats enough to show how much people dislike it ; they do n't even recognize that its a real religion sometimes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last time I checked, "Scientology" wasn't really a word (even though it technically is).
Heck they even made fun of it on The Suite Life of Zack and Cody once, when London said that she was really good at scientology or something.
Thats enough to show how much people dislike it; they don't even recognize that its a real religion sometimes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135063</id>
	<title>Re:Fine by me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243534980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>As much as I despise Scientology, I don't see why their cult should be singled out... other cults (oh ok "religions", whats the difference) that do the same thing are being described in completely different way</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, Scientology (and other cults) do things I've never heard of religions doing (since the Middle Ages):</p><ol> <li>Restrict who is allowed to have access to holy texts so they can make enlightenment contingent on payment</li><li>Record confessions/counciling sessions to blackmail members.</li><li>The use of hypnosis and other techniquies aimed at the un/subconcious.</li><li>Claims a scientific validity (and basis... even so far as claiming to be based on earlier, real, scientists work)</li><li>An attempt to vilify, ostrecize, and isolate people who leave.</li><li><p>Also, Scientology seems to ignore many things real religions do: organize food drives and other charitable events, provide aid to members in need (emotional or economic), and other beneficent acts.</p></li></ol></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as I despise Scientology , I do n't see why their cult should be singled out... other cults ( oh ok " religions " , whats the difference ) that do the same thing are being described in completely different wayWell , Scientology ( and other cults ) do things I 've never heard of religions doing ( since the Middle Ages ) : Restrict who is allowed to have access to holy texts so they can make enlightenment contingent on paymentRecord confessions/counciling sessions to blackmail members.The use of hypnosis and other techniquies aimed at the un/subconcious.Claims a scientific validity ( and basis... even so far as claiming to be based on earlier , real , scientists work ) An attempt to vilify , ostrecize , and isolate people who leave.Also , Scientology seems to ignore many things real religions do : organize food drives and other charitable events , provide aid to members in need ( emotional or economic ) , and other beneficent acts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as I despise Scientology, I don't see why their cult should be singled out... other cults (oh ok "religions", whats the difference) that do the same thing are being described in completely different wayWell, Scientology (and other cults) do things I've never heard of religions doing (since the Middle Ages): Restrict who is allowed to have access to holy texts so they can make enlightenment contingent on paymentRecord confessions/counciling sessions to blackmail members.The use of hypnosis and other techniquies aimed at the un/subconcious.Claims a scientific validity (and basis... even so far as claiming to be based on earlier, real, scientists work)An attempt to vilify, ostrecize, and isolate people who leave.Also, Scientology seems to ignore many things real religions do: organize food drives and other charitable events, provide aid to members in need (emotional or economic), and other beneficent acts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133643</id>
	<title>freedom of expression</title>
	<author>rosaliepizza</author>
	<datestamp>1243523040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for all
people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
-- Noam Chomsky</htmltext>
<tokenext>" If we do n't believe in freedom of expression for all people we despise , we do n't believe in it at all .
" -- Noam Chomsky</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for all
people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.
"
-- Noam Chomsky</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135017</id>
	<title>What about self-serving corporations?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243534500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>eNom, a Redmond domain registrar hired a PR person to whitewash their Wikipedia entry.  They probably wouldn't have gotten away with it but they had Wikipedia editors as friends help them maintain the cleanup and ban any user that attempted to maintain a neutral point-of-view (NPOV).  Look at the history and see the edits for yourself, you can see the addition of all sorts of corporate marketing speak such as a "Accreditations and Awards" section and a rewrite of studies performed by the University of Oregon on spam support by domain registrars.</p><p>It pisses me off because eNom / Demand Media are one of the most-abused domain registrars by spammers and eNom, no doubt, can probably attribute a lot of their income to the support of abuse.  I was *attempting* to document their company's spam support services.  A lot of the reverted edits focused on whether particular articles were proper as a source for news such as circleID or op-ed type articles with proper citations but when pro-eNom material fit them, whether it was a proper citation or not it was allowed.  Just burns me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>eNom , a Redmond domain registrar hired a PR person to whitewash their Wikipedia entry .
They probably would n't have gotten away with it but they had Wikipedia editors as friends help them maintain the cleanup and ban any user that attempted to maintain a neutral point-of-view ( NPOV ) .
Look at the history and see the edits for yourself , you can see the addition of all sorts of corporate marketing speak such as a " Accreditations and Awards " section and a rewrite of studies performed by the University of Oregon on spam support by domain registrars.It pisses me off because eNom / Demand Media are one of the most-abused domain registrars by spammers and eNom , no doubt , can probably attribute a lot of their income to the support of abuse .
I was * attempting * to document their company 's spam support services .
A lot of the reverted edits focused on whether particular articles were proper as a source for news such as circleID or op-ed type articles with proper citations but when pro-eNom material fit them , whether it was a proper citation or not it was allowed .
Just burns me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eNom, a Redmond domain registrar hired a PR person to whitewash their Wikipedia entry.
They probably wouldn't have gotten away with it but they had Wikipedia editors as friends help them maintain the cleanup and ban any user that attempted to maintain a neutral point-of-view (NPOV).
Look at the history and see the edits for yourself, you can see the addition of all sorts of corporate marketing speak such as a "Accreditations and Awards" section and a rewrite of studies performed by the University of Oregon on spam support by domain registrars.It pisses me off because eNom / Demand Media are one of the most-abused domain registrars by spammers and eNom, no doubt, can probably attribute a lot of their income to the support of abuse.
I was *attempting* to document their company's spam support services.
A lot of the reverted edits focused on whether particular articles were proper as a source for news such as circleID or op-ed type articles with proper citations but when pro-eNom material fit them, whether it was a proper citation or not it was allowed.
Just burns me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133981</id>
	<title>Re:About Fucking Time</title>
	<author>Shadow of Eternity</author>
	<datestamp>1243525500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Legally violent? They're not above assassination attempts and framejobs for outsiders and raping and murdering insiders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Legally violent ?
They 're not above assassination attempts and framejobs for outsiders and raping and murdering insiders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Legally violent?
They're not above assassination attempts and framejobs for outsiders and raping and murdering insiders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133911</id>
	<title>Re:About Fucking Time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243525140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>sounds alot like the cathlic church if u ask me..

then agian ALL religions are prety much the same..

prfit god hlly bok

and last but not least belive what i say or i hurt you..

cept fr the budists

thay say belive what i say or ill hurt myself..
all those monks that set fire t themselves in the 60's in protest of opreshion..</htmltext>
<tokenext>sounds alot like the cathlic church if u ask me. . then agian ALL religions are prety much the same. . prfit god hlly bok and last but not least belive what i say or i hurt you. . cept fr the budists thay say belive what i say or ill hurt myself. . all those monks that set fire t themselves in the 60 's in protest of opreshion. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sounds alot like the cathlic church if u ask me..

then agian ALL religions are prety much the same..

prfit god hlly bok

and last but not least belive what i say or i hurt you..

cept fr the budists

thay say belive what i say or ill hurt myself..
all those monks that set fire t themselves in the 60's in protest of opreshion..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134217</id>
	<title>Did anybody else see the Scientology AD banner?</title>
	<author>Trip6</author>
	<datestamp>1243527180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Talk about irony!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Talk about irony !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talk about irony!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133769</id>
	<title>banned?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243524180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How ironic, I see a Google ad "Truth About Scientology" instead of the original slashdot article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How ironic , I see a Google ad " Truth About Scientology " instead of the original slashdot article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How ironic, I see a Google ad "Truth About Scientology" instead of the original slashdot article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134375</id>
	<title>Re:freedom of expression</title>
	<author>pete6677</author>
	<datestamp>1243528380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's interesting. Chomsky himself only believes in freedom of expression for people whose beliefs he supports. This man is a never-ending source of irony (oh the ironing is delicious!).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's interesting .
Chomsky himself only believes in freedom of expression for people whose beliefs he supports .
This man is a never-ending source of irony ( oh the ironing is delicious !
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's interesting.
Chomsky himself only believes in freedom of expression for people whose beliefs he supports.
This man is a never-ending source of irony (oh the ironing is delicious!
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133687</id>
	<title>Good :)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243523460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They were just way too pushy. OMG and I don't even know how they call themselves a church. I'm Catholic and we just go about our own business and don't try to convert anyone or make people believe what we believe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They were just way too pushy .
OMG and I do n't even know how they call themselves a church .
I 'm Catholic and we just go about our own business and do n't try to convert anyone or make people believe what we believe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They were just way too pushy.
OMG and I don't even know how they call themselves a church.
I'm Catholic and we just go about our own business and don't try to convert anyone or make people believe what we believe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28142949</id>
	<title>Re:IP addresses don't identify users</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1243630740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>They sure don't identify users, but they sure identify locations!</p></div></blockquote><p>No, they only identify the last publicly accessible router in the chain.  The user could well be on the other side of the planet.</p><p>VPN tunnels?  Proxies?  Multihomed ISPs?  Nation-wide cellular internet service with static IP addresses?  etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They sure do n't identify users , but they sure identify locations ! No , they only identify the last publicly accessible router in the chain .
The user could well be on the other side of the planet.VPN tunnels ?
Proxies ? Multihomed ISPs ?
Nation-wide cellular internet service with static IP addresses ?
etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They sure don't identify users, but they sure identify locations!No, they only identify the last publicly accessible router in the chain.
The user could well be on the other side of the planet.VPN tunnels?
Proxies?  Multihomed ISPs?
Nation-wide cellular internet service with static IP addresses?
etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133697</id>
	<title>Can't open stories in FF</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243523520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone else unable to open stories in Firefox?  Works fine in IE.</p><p>The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading.</p><p>The network link was interrupted while negotiating a connection. Please try again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone else unable to open stories in Firefox ?
Works fine in IE.The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading.The network link was interrupted while negotiating a connection .
Please try again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone else unable to open stories in Firefox?
Works fine in IE.The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading.The network link was interrupted while negotiating a connection.
Please try again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134861</id>
	<title>Re:Fine by me</title>
	<author>ChaosDiscord</author>
	<datestamp>1243533240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People focus on Scientology because it screws people up to an extent no major religion does.  Other smaller religions and factions are similarly destructive, like the Mormon faction that still practices polygamy, but they tend to be small fish compared to Scientology.  This is why anti-Scientology unites people of multiple religions and atheists. Once people decided to focus on Scientology, the question was how to attack.  It's hard to go wrong with mocking someone, and Scientology's beliefs are so wonderfully easy to mock.  So that's what they mock.  It's the tactic, not the reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People focus on Scientology because it screws people up to an extent no major religion does .
Other smaller religions and factions are similarly destructive , like the Mormon faction that still practices polygamy , but they tend to be small fish compared to Scientology .
This is why anti-Scientology unites people of multiple religions and atheists .
Once people decided to focus on Scientology , the question was how to attack .
It 's hard to go wrong with mocking someone , and Scientology 's beliefs are so wonderfully easy to mock .
So that 's what they mock .
It 's the tactic , not the reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People focus on Scientology because it screws people up to an extent no major religion does.
Other smaller religions and factions are similarly destructive, like the Mormon faction that still practices polygamy, but they tend to be small fish compared to Scientology.
This is why anti-Scientology unites people of multiple religions and atheists.
Once people decided to focus on Scientology, the question was how to attack.
It's hard to go wrong with mocking someone, and Scientology's beliefs are so wonderfully easy to mock.
So that's what they mock.
It's the tactic, not the reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28138251</id>
	<title>Re:What Science?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243609200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so, what is the noble precept of Scientology?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so , what is the noble precept of Scientology ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so, what is the noble precept of Scientology?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137837</id>
	<title>Re:"encyclopedia anyone can edit" a misnomer</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1243607340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think it's a misnomer - if someone says he runs a shop/bar/club that's open to any members of the public, we wouldn't criticise him because he had to ban the guy who smashed up the place last week. Picking about this detail would be rather pedantic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think it 's a misnomer - if someone says he runs a shop/bar/club that 's open to any members of the public , we would n't criticise him because he had to ban the guy who smashed up the place last week .
Picking about this detail would be rather pedantic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think it's a misnomer - if someone says he runs a shop/bar/club that's open to any members of the public, we wouldn't criticise him because he had to ban the guy who smashed up the place last week.
Picking about this detail would be rather pedantic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28147823</id>
	<title>dayrochester</title>
	<author>dayrochester</author>
	<datestamp>1243715940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wikis are fine if it in regards to a specific product or service, but an Encyclopedia. I laugh out loud with great fervor (not lol, but LOL). In regards to Scientology, I see no difference than a Fortune 500 company using, dare I say the word 'Wikipedia' argh, as a shill for their product!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikis are fine if it in regards to a specific product or service , but an Encyclopedia .
I laugh out loud with great fervor ( not lol , but LOL ) .
In regards to Scientology , I see no difference than a Fortune 500 company using , dare I say the word 'Wikipedia ' argh , as a shill for their product !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikis are fine if it in regards to a specific product or service, but an Encyclopedia.
I laugh out loud with great fervor (not lol, but LOL).
In regards to Scientology, I see no difference than a Fortune 500 company using, dare I say the word 'Wikipedia' argh, as a shill for their product!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133819</id>
	<title>So now it's...</title>
	<author>93 Escort Wagon</author>
	<datestamp>1243524540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia many people can edit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia many people can edit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia many people can edit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134485</id>
	<title>Re:Fine by me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243529580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and pastors from certain chrsitian sects rape little boys.. I really don't see any worthwhile conclusion in your correlation. Perhaps the correct one to draw is "faith breeds inanity."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and pastors from certain chrsitian sects rape little boys.. I really do n't see any worthwhile conclusion in your correlation .
Perhaps the correct one to draw is " faith breeds inanity .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and pastors from certain chrsitian sects rape little boys.. I really don't see any worthwhile conclusion in your correlation.
Perhaps the correct one to draw is "faith breeds inanity.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28145195</id>
	<title>Re:About Fucking Time</title>
	<author>Phroggy</author>
	<datestamp>1243598700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even more interestingly is that inter-church issues are not taken to court, in fact, to take an internal quarrel to court is grounds from a church ban. They have their own "ethics committees" that see such cases, but they generally follow their own laws and not those of the locale they're in.</p></div><p>This is actually not ridiculous at all; the Bible actually says Christians should do this (1 Corinthians 6:1-11).  Christianity is based on love, and it should be possible for two Christians who both love God and love each other to resolve a dispute fairly without involving the courts.  Jesus Christ even gave simple instructions (Matthew 18:15-17):</p><blockquote><div><p>"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses [Deuteronomy 19:15].' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector [think Sheriff of Nottingham, not the IRS]."</p></div></blockquote><p>Note that Jesus was speaking to his disciples, who had a Jewish background; he quotes Jewish law from the Torah.  Paul was writing to the Christian church at Corinth.  This does not apply to any conflict with someone who doesn't belong to the same religion that you do; the courts are an appropriate venue for those disputes.</p><p>Scientologists are crazy, but not for this specific reason.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even more interestingly is that inter-church issues are not taken to court , in fact , to take an internal quarrel to court is grounds from a church ban .
They have their own " ethics committees " that see such cases , but they generally follow their own laws and not those of the locale they 're in.This is actually not ridiculous at all ; the Bible actually says Christians should do this ( 1 Corinthians 6 : 1-11 ) .
Christianity is based on love , and it should be possible for two Christians who both love God and love each other to resolve a dispute fairly without involving the courts .
Jesus Christ even gave simple instructions ( Matthew 18 : 15-17 ) : " If your brother sins against you , go and show him his fault , just between the two of you .
If he listens to you , you have won your brother over .
But if he will not listen , take one or two others along , so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses [ Deuteronomy 19 : 15 ] .
' If he refuses to listen to them , tell it to the church ; and if he refuses to listen even to the church , treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector [ think Sheriff of Nottingham , not the IRS ] .
" Note that Jesus was speaking to his disciples , who had a Jewish background ; he quotes Jewish law from the Torah .
Paul was writing to the Christian church at Corinth .
This does not apply to any conflict with someone who does n't belong to the same religion that you do ; the courts are an appropriate venue for those disputes.Scientologists are crazy , but not for this specific reason .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even more interestingly is that inter-church issues are not taken to court, in fact, to take an internal quarrel to court is grounds from a church ban.
They have their own "ethics committees" that see such cases, but they generally follow their own laws and not those of the locale they're in.This is actually not ridiculous at all; the Bible actually says Christians should do this (1 Corinthians 6:1-11).
Christianity is based on love, and it should be possible for two Christians who both love God and love each other to resolve a dispute fairly without involving the courts.
Jesus Christ even gave simple instructions (Matthew 18:15-17):"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you.
If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.
But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses [Deuteronomy 19:15].
' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector [think Sheriff of Nottingham, not the IRS].
"Note that Jesus was speaking to his disciples, who had a Jewish background; he quotes Jewish law from the Torah.
Paul was writing to the Christian church at Corinth.
This does not apply to any conflict with someone who doesn't belong to the same religion that you do; the courts are an appropriate venue for those disputes.Scientologists are crazy, but not for this specific reason.
:-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136009</id>
	<title>Re:freedom of expression</title>
	<author>gnud</author>
	<datestamp>1243589460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They can even put a link to their views on wikipedia, and nobody will remove it. Only, it'll say that it's THEIR views.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They can even put a link to their views on wikipedia , and nobody will remove it .
Only , it 'll say that it 's THEIR views .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can even put a link to their views on wikipedia, and nobody will remove it.
Only, it'll say that it's THEIR views.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28141019</id>
	<title>Breaking rules != freedom of expression</title>
	<author>Player 03</author>
	<datestamp>1243622940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wikipedia has certain terms of use, notably their <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COI" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">conflict of interest policy</a> [wikipedia.org]. The Church of Scientology has consistently violated this policy, and it is only reasonable that it be blocked. This doesn't infringe on the Church's ability to say what it likes; it simply prevents the Church from doing so on Wikipedia.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia has certain terms of use , notably their conflict of interest policy [ wikipedia.org ] .
The Church of Scientology has consistently violated this policy , and it is only reasonable that it be blocked .
This does n't infringe on the Church 's ability to say what it likes ; it simply prevents the Church from doing so on Wikipedia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia has certain terms of use, notably their conflict of interest policy [wikipedia.org].
The Church of Scientology has consistently violated this policy, and it is only reasonable that it be blocked.
This doesn't infringe on the Church's ability to say what it likes; it simply prevents the Church from doing so on Wikipedia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134631</id>
	<title>Re:Good :)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243531020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, Catholics just try to dictate what we can and cannot do via legal manipulation.  And so do most other Christian sects.  Freedom?  Catholics were hit in the ass with it a couple centuries ago, and they've been actively trying to kill it ever since.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , Catholics just try to dictate what we can and can not do via legal manipulation .
And so do most other Christian sects .
Freedom ? Catholics were hit in the ass with it a couple centuries ago , and they 've been actively trying to kill it ever since .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, Catholics just try to dictate what we can and cannot do via legal manipulation.
And so do most other Christian sects.
Freedom?  Catholics were hit in the ass with it a couple centuries ago, and they've been actively trying to kill it ever since.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28146593</id>
	<title>Re:Fine by me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243611900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it sends a loud and clear rebuke that they do not know how to play or work well with others.  This means the self-style <em>church</em> will never graduate past kindergarten.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it sends a loud and clear rebuke that they do not know how to play or work well with others .
This means the self-style church will never graduate past kindergarten .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it sends a loud and clear rebuke that they do not know how to play or work well with others.
This means the self-style church will never graduate past kindergarten.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136549</id>
	<title>What is the command for ... ?</title>
	<author>krouic</author>
	<datestamp>1243596720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is the command for removing Wikipedia from the Internet ?</p><p>They almost succeded with that years ago on Usenet by issuing the "RMGROUP alt.religion.scientology" command.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is the command for removing Wikipedia from the Internet ? They almost succeded with that years ago on Usenet by issuing the " RMGROUP alt.religion.scientology " command .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is the command for removing Wikipedia from the Internet ?They almost succeded with that years ago on Usenet by issuing the "RMGROUP alt.religion.scientology" command.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134641</id>
	<title>Re:Fine by me</title>
	<author>mcrbids</author>
	<datestamp>1243531080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>(oh ok "religions" what's the difference?)</i></p><p>Both are fine with believinng idiocies like evil galactic overlords, Harems full of virgins, or deities that grant eternal life by dying on a wooden stake along with some criminals.</p><p>Both have memberships and generally some way to extract money from their populations.</p><p>But a religion becomes a cult when one or more of the following occur:</p><p>1) a clear bias towards profit. ( google for 'scientology make money'' to see this in action)</p><p>2) Membership policies that serve to isolate its mebership from external influence. (Oogle 'scientology disconnection policy' for more details)</p><p>3) Extreme polcies of secrecy and nondisclosure. (such as the Xenu story which Scientology still denies even though the cat it SOOOO out of the bag - they charge you some 300,000 dollars to find out the 'truth')</p><p>4) General skirting social norms and laws, such as child labor, marriage/sexuality, contracts, finance, education, etc. Note that Scientology has many, many horror stories from children that have been raised in or introduced at an early age.  Additionally, it's composed of a complex labrynth of corporations and licensing that clearly is designed to withstand significant legal assault.</p><p>Yes, the mormons have many of these attributes, but Scientology takes these to a whole new extreme.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( oh ok " religions " what 's the difference ?
) Both are fine with believinng idiocies like evil galactic overlords , Harems full of virgins , or deities that grant eternal life by dying on a wooden stake along with some criminals.Both have memberships and generally some way to extract money from their populations.But a religion becomes a cult when one or more of the following occur : 1 ) a clear bias towards profit .
( google for 'scientology make money' ' to see this in action ) 2 ) Membership policies that serve to isolate its mebership from external influence .
( Oogle 'scientology disconnection policy ' for more details ) 3 ) Extreme polcies of secrecy and nondisclosure .
( such as the Xenu story which Scientology still denies even though the cat it SOOOO out of the bag - they charge you some 300,000 dollars to find out the 'truth ' ) 4 ) General skirting social norms and laws , such as child labor , marriage/sexuality , contracts , finance , education , etc .
Note that Scientology has many , many horror stories from children that have been raised in or introduced at an early age .
Additionally , it 's composed of a complex labrynth of corporations and licensing that clearly is designed to withstand significant legal assault.Yes , the mormons have many of these attributes , but Scientology takes these to a whole new extreme .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(oh ok "religions" what's the difference?
)Both are fine with believinng idiocies like evil galactic overlords, Harems full of virgins, or deities that grant eternal life by dying on a wooden stake along with some criminals.Both have memberships and generally some way to extract money from their populations.But a religion becomes a cult when one or more of the following occur:1) a clear bias towards profit.
( google for 'scientology make money'' to see this in action)2) Membership policies that serve to isolate its mebership from external influence.
(Oogle 'scientology disconnection policy' for more details)3) Extreme polcies of secrecy and nondisclosure.
(such as the Xenu story which Scientology still denies even though the cat it SOOOO out of the bag - they charge you some 300,000 dollars to find out the 'truth')4) General skirting social norms and laws, such as child labor, marriage/sexuality, contracts, finance, education, etc.
Note that Scientology has many, many horror stories from children that have been raised in or introduced at an early age.
Additionally, it's composed of a complex labrynth of corporations and licensing that clearly is designed to withstand significant legal assault.Yes, the mormons have many of these attributes, but Scientology takes these to a whole new extreme.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136299</id>
	<title>Re:how many more people have to die?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243593240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Its amazing how many people have ended up 6-feet under after becoming a member of scientology</i> </p><p>Whereas converts to other religions live forever?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its amazing how many people have ended up 6-feet under after becoming a member of scientology Whereas converts to other religions live forever ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its amazing how many people have ended up 6-feet under after becoming a member of scientology Whereas converts to other religions live forever?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28143721</id>
	<title>Re:About Fucking Time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243591020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... if you murder a guy and there's noone to get pissed about it, that's ok?  The courts exist to uphold a standard of law across the land.  I could see your argument for civil courts but a crime is a crime no matter how much you pay off the victim.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... if you murder a guy and there 's noone to get pissed about it , that 's ok ?
The courts exist to uphold a standard of law across the land .
I could see your argument for civil courts but a crime is a crime no matter how much you pay off the victim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... if you murder a guy and there's noone to get pissed about it, that's ok?
The courts exist to uphold a standard of law across the land.
I could see your argument for civil courts but a crime is a crime no matter how much you pay off the victim.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133553</id>
	<title>Can it ban asshole admins as well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243522440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pmdrive1061 and J.delanoy for example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pmdrive1061 and J.delanoy for example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pmdrive1061 and J.delanoy for example.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28138445</id>
	<title>as long as those people</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1243610040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>also allow freedom of expression</p><p>but scientology, as well as many other governments and religions, are openly hostile to free expression. this means the chomsky quote no longer applies</p><p>for example: i have no problem with a homophobic racist expressing their views, as long as they don't also attempt to silence nonhomophobic nonracists. as soon as they do, all bets are off</p><p>to express it logically: tolerance is not the same as tolerance of intolerance. in fact, if you tolerate intolerance, by proxy you are extending intolerance. logically, if you believe in tolerance, you must be intolerant of intolerance</p><p>for example: "i am muslim"</p><p>you must tolerate that</p><p>"i hate christians"</p><p>you must not tolerate that, in the name of tolerance</p><p>the concept of tolerance does not extend to intolerant beliefs. out of pure logic</p><p>many conservatives talk about the hypocrisy of leftists who are intolerant of conservative viewpoints while leftists demand more tolerance in this world. but this logically incoherent, since many viewpoints of conservatives, such as homophobia and ethnocentrism, are by logical definition intolerant beliefs, and, according to the principle of tolerance, must not be tolerated</p><p>its all about logical coherence. and plenty of times, you must, out of simple logical consistency, not tolerate intolerant belief systems</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>also allow freedom of expressionbut scientology , as well as many other governments and religions , are openly hostile to free expression .
this means the chomsky quote no longer appliesfor example : i have no problem with a homophobic racist expressing their views , as long as they do n't also attempt to silence nonhomophobic nonracists .
as soon as they do , all bets are offto express it logically : tolerance is not the same as tolerance of intolerance .
in fact , if you tolerate intolerance , by proxy you are extending intolerance .
logically , if you believe in tolerance , you must be intolerant of intolerancefor example : " i am muslim " you must tolerate that " i hate christians " you must not tolerate that , in the name of tolerancethe concept of tolerance does not extend to intolerant beliefs .
out of pure logicmany conservatives talk about the hypocrisy of leftists who are intolerant of conservative viewpoints while leftists demand more tolerance in this world .
but this logically incoherent , since many viewpoints of conservatives , such as homophobia and ethnocentrism , are by logical definition intolerant beliefs , and , according to the principle of tolerance , must not be toleratedits all about logical coherence .
and plenty of times , you must , out of simple logical consistency , not tolerate intolerant belief systems</tokentext>
<sentencetext>also allow freedom of expressionbut scientology, as well as many other governments and religions, are openly hostile to free expression.
this means the chomsky quote no longer appliesfor example: i have no problem with a homophobic racist expressing their views, as long as they don't also attempt to silence nonhomophobic nonracists.
as soon as they do, all bets are offto express it logically: tolerance is not the same as tolerance of intolerance.
in fact, if you tolerate intolerance, by proxy you are extending intolerance.
logically, if you believe in tolerance, you must be intolerant of intolerancefor example: "i am muslim"you must tolerate that"i hate christians"you must not tolerate that, in the name of tolerancethe concept of tolerance does not extend to intolerant beliefs.
out of pure logicmany conservatives talk about the hypocrisy of leftists who are intolerant of conservative viewpoints while leftists demand more tolerance in this world.
but this logically incoherent, since many viewpoints of conservatives, such as homophobia and ethnocentrism, are by logical definition intolerant beliefs, and, according to the principle of tolerance, must not be toleratedits all about logical coherence.
and plenty of times, you must, out of simple logical consistency, not tolerate intolerant belief systems
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135295</id>
	<title>Re:freedom of expression</title>
	<author>lras</author>
	<datestamp>1243537320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They are free to express themselves. <b>Just not over here on this privately run website</b></p> </div><p>
Thinking of Wikipedia as simply any privately run website that the owner can censor as s/he sees fit, misses the point.

</p><p>
You are technically correct, but Wikipedia is used by us all to collect our common knowledge. If we can't find a way to do that in collaboration in a democratic way, without resorting to censorship by some arbitrary guy, then we must find another medium.

</p><p>
It is almost as bad as if some company claimed ownership or copyright on the contents of Wikipedia and prevented everyone else from using (copying/pasting) the information.

</p><p>
But I may be wrong.  The idea of a democratic encyclopedia with essentially anonymous contributors maybe is a pipe dream. Perhaps there actually has to be an identifiable publisher/censor for all information, in order to reveal the bias exists in all articles.

</p><p>
Perhaps the author tag should be made more explicit on wikipedia, like a source code "blame" mark.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are free to express themselves .
Just not over here on this privately run website Thinking of Wikipedia as simply any privately run website that the owner can censor as s/he sees fit , misses the point .
You are technically correct , but Wikipedia is used by us all to collect our common knowledge .
If we ca n't find a way to do that in collaboration in a democratic way , without resorting to censorship by some arbitrary guy , then we must find another medium .
It is almost as bad as if some company claimed ownership or copyright on the contents of Wikipedia and prevented everyone else from using ( copying/pasting ) the information .
But I may be wrong .
The idea of a democratic encyclopedia with essentially anonymous contributors maybe is a pipe dream .
Perhaps there actually has to be an identifiable publisher/censor for all information , in order to reveal the bias exists in all articles .
Perhaps the author tag should be made more explicit on wikipedia , like a source code " blame " mark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are free to express themselves.
Just not over here on this privately run website 
Thinking of Wikipedia as simply any privately run website that the owner can censor as s/he sees fit, misses the point.
You are technically correct, but Wikipedia is used by us all to collect our common knowledge.
If we can't find a way to do that in collaboration in a democratic way, without resorting to censorship by some arbitrary guy, then we must find another medium.
It is almost as bad as if some company claimed ownership or copyright on the contents of Wikipedia and prevented everyone else from using (copying/pasting) the information.
But I may be wrong.
The idea of a democratic encyclopedia with essentially anonymous contributors maybe is a pipe dream.
Perhaps there actually has to be an identifiable publisher/censor for all information, in order to reveal the bias exists in all articles.
Perhaps the author tag should be made more explicit on wikipedia, like a source code "blame" mark.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135679</id>
	<title>That sheds interesting light on his recent bust</title>
	<author>strat</author>
	<datestamp>1243628760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now the <a href="http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0327092sham1.html" title="thesmokinggun.com" rel="nofollow">police report</a> [thesmokinggun.com] does indicate that they were both probably drinking.. but one wonders if perhaps his meeting with this lady was not entirely happenstance. </p><p>She does bear a passing resemblance to Jenna Elfman.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now the police report [ thesmokinggun.com ] does indicate that they were both probably drinking.. but one wonders if perhaps his meeting with this lady was not entirely happenstance .
She does bear a passing resemblance to Jenna Elfman .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now the police report [thesmokinggun.com] does indicate that they were both probably drinking.. but one wonders if perhaps his meeting with this lady was not entirely happenstance.
She does bear a passing resemblance to Jenna Elfman.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28148383</id>
	<title>Re:Fine by me</title>
	<author>a09bdb811a</author>
	<datestamp>1243684260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>I'm a recent (a few years back) convert</em></p><p>lol. I hope she's worth it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a recent ( a few years back ) convertlol .
I hope she 's worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a recent (a few years back) convertlol.
I hope she's worth it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28140113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136135</id>
	<title>Re:What Science?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243591200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the most bizarre comment to be modded +5 insightful.</p><p>Scientology doesn't have any relation to science other than that the names look similar.  Maybe if this were an article about Christian Science then your comment would make a bit of sense.</p><p>Also, I don't think you know what the word precept means.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the most bizarre comment to be modded + 5 insightful.Scientology does n't have any relation to science other than that the names look similar .
Maybe if this were an article about Christian Science then your comment would make a bit of sense.Also , I do n't think you know what the word precept means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the most bizarre comment to be modded +5 insightful.Scientology doesn't have any relation to science other than that the names look similar.
Maybe if this were an article about Christian Science then your comment would make a bit of sense.Also, I don't think you know what the word precept means.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135573</id>
	<title>Re:I hope they ban the Boy Scouts of America next</title>
	<author>dredwerker</author>
	<datestamp>1243627680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's a page that lists famous Boy Scouts and Eagle Scouts.

I always add, with CITATIONS FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES and other sources,

Charles Manson

and

Dennis Rader ("BTK Serial Killer)

and the terrorist group known as the BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA promptly removes it.</p></div><p>This sounds like a mission for slashdot. Surely if enough people change it they will give up. I dont understand how one person seems to get the power to change it to what they want and it can never change. It seems to be the first person/few people to be interested in a topic wins on wikipedia.

I might pop over to the scouts page<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)   <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy\_scouts\_of\_america" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Linky</a> [wikipedia.org]

Although I cant see any famous scouts on the page.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a page that lists famous Boy Scouts and Eagle Scouts .
I always add , with CITATIONS FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES and other sources , Charles Manson and Dennis Rader ( " BTK Serial Killer ) and the terrorist group known as the BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA promptly removes it.This sounds like a mission for slashdot .
Surely if enough people change it they will give up .
I dont understand how one person seems to get the power to change it to what they want and it can never change .
It seems to be the first person/few people to be interested in a topic wins on wikipedia .
I might pop over to the scouts page : ) Linky [ wikipedia.org ] Although I cant see any famous scouts on the page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a page that lists famous Boy Scouts and Eagle Scouts.
I always add, with CITATIONS FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES and other sources,

Charles Manson

and

Dennis Rader ("BTK Serial Killer)

and the terrorist group known as the BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA promptly removes it.This sounds like a mission for slashdot.
Surely if enough people change it they will give up.
I dont understand how one person seems to get the power to change it to what they want and it can never change.
It seems to be the first person/few people to be interested in a topic wins on wikipedia.
I might pop over to the scouts page :)   Linky [wikipedia.org]

Although I cant see any famous scouts on the page.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28138315</id>
	<title>I have other suggestion to get banned</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243609440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about all GNU and Ubuntu users who spread their propaganda about Linux?</p><p>Almost all most used computer articles are biased aboutt hose. One party saying that Operating System ain't operating system if it does not use their software and so on it belongs to it.</p><p>And the party saying that Ubuntu is different operating system than Linux and any other Linux distribution.</p><p>What I have noticed on the computer science point of view about the Wikipedia, it has failed totally.</p><p>Most users on the world does not know computer technology what they use. Their minds are easily twitched with marketing, FUD and other stories.<br>And then they believe they know computer science when they have visited on Ubuntu forums where people says "Yeah, Firefox is part of operating system" or "Yeah, Mark Shuttleworth developed the Ubuntu, but Ubuntu ain't Linux. It is just a Linux-based Operating System". And then they rush to the wikipedia to "correct" articles as they have seen it. For them the "seeing and hearing is believing".</p><p>And when you throw a computer science book in front of them, they turn it away and say "No, that ain't true, that is only for developers, the truth is difference". And then they show you a wikipedia or marketing Ads to tell what the "truth" is.</p><p>But on other hands, the wikipedia has proofed it's idea to work. On the areas where the science and logic is what irons out all the lies. Like everyone can understand that gravity exist, just by dropping something (or jumping from the roof).<br>On every case where you can observe the happening and check does it follow other rules and laws, it is a fact as long other can proof it other way or the that rules and laws where the first is used to proof, can be proof to be wrong.</p><p>On computer science, it is exactly the same as the religion vs science. The religion is the marketing (Ubuntu) and political gain (GNU).</p><p>Like there is very simple question about computer science, if the B needs A and C needs B and A. How it is possible that B and C are A?</p><p>Example, if the CPU needs a motherboard and CPU and motherboard needs a powersource, how these can be parts of the powersource?</p><p>If the library needs a OS and application needs a library and OS, how application and library can be part of the OS?</p><p>You always end up having bigger environments or systems, not that other stuff belongs to one smaller part at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about all GNU and Ubuntu users who spread their propaganda about Linux ? Almost all most used computer articles are biased aboutt hose .
One party saying that Operating System ai n't operating system if it does not use their software and so on it belongs to it.And the party saying that Ubuntu is different operating system than Linux and any other Linux distribution.What I have noticed on the computer science point of view about the Wikipedia , it has failed totally.Most users on the world does not know computer technology what they use .
Their minds are easily twitched with marketing , FUD and other stories.And then they believe they know computer science when they have visited on Ubuntu forums where people says " Yeah , Firefox is part of operating system " or " Yeah , Mark Shuttleworth developed the Ubuntu , but Ubuntu ai n't Linux .
It is just a Linux-based Operating System " .
And then they rush to the wikipedia to " correct " articles as they have seen it .
For them the " seeing and hearing is believing " .And when you throw a computer science book in front of them , they turn it away and say " No , that ai n't true , that is only for developers , the truth is difference " .
And then they show you a wikipedia or marketing Ads to tell what the " truth " is.But on other hands , the wikipedia has proofed it 's idea to work .
On the areas where the science and logic is what irons out all the lies .
Like everyone can understand that gravity exist , just by dropping something ( or jumping from the roof ) .On every case where you can observe the happening and check does it follow other rules and laws , it is a fact as long other can proof it other way or the that rules and laws where the first is used to proof , can be proof to be wrong.On computer science , it is exactly the same as the religion vs science .
The religion is the marketing ( Ubuntu ) and political gain ( GNU ) .Like there is very simple question about computer science , if the B needs A and C needs B and A. How it is possible that B and C are A ? Example , if the CPU needs a motherboard and CPU and motherboard needs a powersource , how these can be parts of the powersource ? If the library needs a OS and application needs a library and OS , how application and library can be part of the OS ? You always end up having bigger environments or systems , not that other stuff belongs to one smaller part at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about all GNU and Ubuntu users who spread their propaganda about Linux?Almost all most used computer articles are biased aboutt hose.
One party saying that Operating System ain't operating system if it does not use their software and so on it belongs to it.And the party saying that Ubuntu is different operating system than Linux and any other Linux distribution.What I have noticed on the computer science point of view about the Wikipedia, it has failed totally.Most users on the world does not know computer technology what they use.
Their minds are easily twitched with marketing, FUD and other stories.And then they believe they know computer science when they have visited on Ubuntu forums where people says "Yeah, Firefox is part of operating system" or "Yeah, Mark Shuttleworth developed the Ubuntu, but Ubuntu ain't Linux.
It is just a Linux-based Operating System".
And then they rush to the wikipedia to "correct" articles as they have seen it.
For them the "seeing and hearing is believing".And when you throw a computer science book in front of them, they turn it away and say "No, that ain't true, that is only for developers, the truth is difference".
And then they show you a wikipedia or marketing Ads to tell what the "truth" is.But on other hands, the wikipedia has proofed it's idea to work.
On the areas where the science and logic is what irons out all the lies.
Like everyone can understand that gravity exist, just by dropping something (or jumping from the roof).On every case where you can observe the happening and check does it follow other rules and laws, it is a fact as long other can proof it other way or the that rules and laws where the first is used to proof, can be proof to be wrong.On computer science, it is exactly the same as the religion vs science.
The religion is the marketing (Ubuntu) and political gain (GNU).Like there is very simple question about computer science, if the B needs A and C needs B and A. How it is possible that B and C are A?Example, if the CPU needs a motherboard and CPU and motherboard needs a powersource, how these can be parts of the powersource?If the library needs a OS and application needs a library and OS, how application and library can be part of the OS?You always end up having bigger environments or systems, not that other stuff belongs to one smaller part at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133837</id>
	<title>Re:how many more people have to die?</title>
	<author>OrangeTide</author>
	<datestamp>1243524660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>no criminal organization should be allowed to hide under the thin veil of religion</p></div><p>You mean like Catholicism? What about pseudo religious fraternal organizations like Freemasonry?</p><p>Just because they've been accepted longer than Scientology doesn't mean we shouldn't also scrutinize them as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>no criminal organization should be allowed to hide under the thin veil of religionYou mean like Catholicism ?
What about pseudo religious fraternal organizations like Freemasonry ? Just because they 've been accepted longer than Scientology does n't mean we should n't also scrutinize them as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no criminal organization should be allowed to hide under the thin veil of religionYou mean like Catholicism?
What about pseudo religious fraternal organizations like Freemasonry?Just because they've been accepted longer than Scientology doesn't mean we shouldn't also scrutinize them as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134751</id>
	<title>Re:Tor?</title>
	<author>ChaosDiscord</author>
	<datestamp>1243532280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wikipedia has a system for blocking proxy edits to articles, and the system detects and blocks tor with reasonable accuracy.  It's not usually on, but they turn it on for specific articles that have problems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia has a system for blocking proxy edits to articles , and the system detects and blocks tor with reasonable accuracy .
It 's not usually on , but they turn it on for specific articles that have problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia has a system for blocking proxy edits to articles, and the system detects and blocks tor with reasonable accuracy.
It's not usually on, but they turn it on for specific articles that have problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133695</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134197</id>
	<title>"encyclopedia anyone can edit" a misnomer</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1243527060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... encyclopedia anyone can edit" is a misnomer and has been since the first block was imposed.  It's an ideal that most editors wish could be true but given human behavior cannot be true any time soon.</p><p>For many years Wikipedia has a rule that you don't make substantial edits to articles that you have a conflict of interest in.  It's almost always done on the honor system: Most editors realize that this rule is good for the project.</p><p>Contentious topics like political and religious topics frequently require outside policing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The ... encyclopedia anyone can edit " is a misnomer and has been since the first block was imposed .
It 's an ideal that most editors wish could be true but given human behavior can not be true any time soon.For many years Wikipedia has a rule that you do n't make substantial edits to articles that you have a conflict of interest in .
It 's almost always done on the honor system : Most editors realize that this rule is good for the project.Contentious topics like political and religious topics frequently require outside policing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The ... encyclopedia anyone can edit" is a misnomer and has been since the first block was imposed.
It's an ideal that most editors wish could be true but given human behavior cannot be true any time soon.For many years Wikipedia has a rule that you don't make substantial edits to articles that you have a conflict of interest in.
It's almost always done on the honor system: Most editors realize that this rule is good for the project.Contentious topics like political and religious topics frequently require outside policing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134775</id>
	<title>Re:About Fucking Time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243532460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm quite sure he didn't see the double standard in his views</p></div><p>Most religions call that "faith".</p><p>Note, I said religions.  Not people.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm quite sure he did n't see the double standard in his viewsMost religions call that " faith " .Note , I said religions .
Not people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm quite sure he didn't see the double standard in his viewsMost religions call that "faith".Note, I said religions.
Not people.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134113</id>
	<title>but..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243526520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it is just me or slashdot crew joined this "religion"... and it has nothing to with that huge scientology banner<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it is just me or slashdot crew joined this " religion " ... and it has nothing to with that huge scientology banner : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it is just me or slashdot crew joined this "religion"... and it has nothing to with that huge scientology banner :P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134629</id>
	<title>Project chantology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243530960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This means that Anonymous from Project chantology now has majority of Wiki admins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This means that Anonymous from Project chantology now has majority of Wiki admins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This means that Anonymous from Project chantology now has majority of Wiki admins.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134261</id>
	<title>Hypocritical</title>
	<author>fireheadca</author>
	<datestamp>1243527480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not defending Scientology, but does Wikipedia not champion free speech?</p><p>Free speech is neither good nor evil, it simply is in its simplest form an opinion that someone voices.</p><p>Whether that opinion is cast in a positive or negative light is up to the listener.</p><p>Perhaps Wikipedia can find a way to create a balance - (Postive/Negative/Neutral Articles? Karma System?) for controversial topics.</p><p>Facts that are Facts can come from both outside and within an organization.</p><p>--<br>"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." GW.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not defending Scientology , but does Wikipedia not champion free speech ? Free speech is neither good nor evil , it simply is in its simplest form an opinion that someone voices.Whether that opinion is cast in a positive or negative light is up to the listener.Perhaps Wikipedia can find a way to create a balance - ( Postive/Negative/Neutral Articles ?
Karma System ?
) for controversial topics.Facts that are Facts can come from both outside and within an organization.-- " If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led , like sheep to the slaughter .
" GW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not defending Scientology, but does Wikipedia not champion free speech?Free speech is neither good nor evil, it simply is in its simplest form an opinion that someone voices.Whether that opinion is cast in a positive or negative light is up to the listener.Perhaps Wikipedia can find a way to create a balance - (Postive/Negative/Neutral Articles?
Karma System?
) for controversial topics.Facts that are Facts can come from both outside and within an organization.--"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.
" GW.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136141</id>
	<title>Re:Tor?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243591260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This will only cause them to start using something like Tor or any other method of obscuring their IP</p></div><p>Tor exit nodes are already flagged as open proxies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This will only cause them to start using something like Tor or any other method of obscuring their IPTor exit nodes are already flagged as open proxies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will only cause them to start using something like Tor or any other method of obscuring their IPTor exit nodes are already flagged as open proxies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133695</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134973</id>
	<title>Re:What Science?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243534080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The CIA created Scientology, too?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The CIA created Scientology , too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The CIA created Scientology, too?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136913</id>
	<title>Re:About Fucking Time</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1243601460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you're entirely missing the point. He's saying Scientology doesn't take their internal problems to court because they don't trust the courts. You are talking about problems that haven't escalated to needing a court to settle. The double standard being they trust the courts when they see it in their favor. Entirely different from just having various breaking points on different issues like you are saying.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're entirely missing the point .
He 's saying Scientology does n't take their internal problems to court because they do n't trust the courts .
You are talking about problems that have n't escalated to needing a court to settle .
The double standard being they trust the courts when they see it in their favor .
Entirely different from just having various breaking points on different issues like you are saying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're entirely missing the point.
He's saying Scientology doesn't take their internal problems to court because they don't trust the courts.
You are talking about problems that haven't escalated to needing a court to settle.
The double standard being they trust the courts when they see it in their favor.
Entirely different from just having various breaking points on different issues like you are saying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28140113</id>
	<title>Re:Fine by me</title>
	<author>IorDMUX</author>
	<datestamp>1243618620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, the mormons have many of these attributes, but Scientology takes these to a whole new extreme.</p></div><p>I certainly agree with your complaints against Scientology, but I definitely have a beef with the first half of your sentence, there.  I'm a recent (a few years back) convert, so I have seen the Mormons from both the outside and the inside.  Let me break this down point by point, as I see some of these misconceptions come up quite a bit:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>1) a clear bias towards profit.</p></div><p>The LDS ("Mormon") Church does urge its members to pay a tithe of their income, however the money does <b>not</b> go to higher-ups within the church leadership.  In fact, we have one of the few layperson priesthoods and layperson leaderships among all religions in the world.  What that means is that the leaders of congregations, the missionaries, the teachers, and up the ladder are <b>volunteer</b> (i.e. unpaid) positions--absolutely no monetary profit involved.  The tithing instead goes to maintaining church buildings, production/distribution of materials, education, and (the greatest portion) charity work.  (The LDS Church, despite being numerically smaller than many other religions, donated some of the largest portions of food, supplies, funds, and labor to various recent disaster sites over the last decade.)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>2) Membership policies that serve to isolate its mebership from external influence.</p></div><p>I can't say I see where this one is coming from, either.  Though the church does host plenty of social events for various age groups, attendance is certainly not mandatory.  I've never felt pressure to change my group of associates or close contacts... if anything, I've become closer to my family (who are not members), upon learning more of the importance that the church places on families.  If you are referring to the odd culture of Utah-Mormons, that's a totally different story of odd cultural quirks arising from a largely homogenous group of people in a small area; however the majority of Mormons in the U.S. do not live in Utah, and the majority of Mormons in the world do not even live in the U.S.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>3) Extreme polices of secrecy and nondisclosure.</p></div><p>Now this one I hear a lot, and I assume it relates to our Temple ceremonies, as we certainly try extremely hard to distribute all of our scripture and doctrine as far and as wide (and as free) as we can.  Also, all of our semi-annual conferences when the Prophet and other leaders speak (the largest and most important church gatherings) are broadcast over satellite and the internet, and are printed and available through various sources.  We don't discuss the temple ceremonies because they are highly symbolic and of a sacred and individual nature to us (we believe that personal revelation is critically involved)--but there is something critical about this that I want to point out... notice what I said, that we distribute "all of our scripture and doctrine".  There is no new law or doctrine or secret that comes out in the temple ceremonies that hasn't been taught in so many ways so many times throughout scripture.  There's nothing comparable to Scientology's holding back of the darkest secrets until you are too deep and too invested to turn around, as in their OT III texts.  </p><p><div class="quote"><p>4) General skirting social norms and laws, such as child labor, marriage/sexuality, contracts, finance, education, etc.</p></div><p>I'm not so certain where you are going with this one... Our views on marriage/sexuality may be more traditional than most modern society (If you are referring to polygamy, it has been illegal in the church for over a hundred years.  If you are interested in more information about how the polygamy is involved with the church's history, here is a <a href="http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy\_Prophets\_and\_Prevarication.html" title="fairlds.org">65 page historical paper on the subject</a> [fairlds.org] by a Mormon M.D., with hundreds of cited historical references... or a <a href="http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ\_cult.shtml#8" title="jefflindsay.com">brief few-paragraph informative opinion</a> [jefflindsay.com].)  Child labor?  Contracts?  I don't know where those even come from.  Education?  We emphasize education quite a bit more than the average American family... our previous prophet spoke often about how men and women should try to pursue college educations as finances allow.  We even have the nation's second-largest private university (with tuition funded partially by tithing, as mentioned above, but open to anyone, members or not).  Finances?  Well, we encourage our members to stay out of credit card debt and the like, which could be considered odd nowadays, but seriously?<br> <br>Just my few cents on the issue.  Thanks for listening.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , the mormons have many of these attributes , but Scientology takes these to a whole new extreme.I certainly agree with your complaints against Scientology , but I definitely have a beef with the first half of your sentence , there .
I 'm a recent ( a few years back ) convert , so I have seen the Mormons from both the outside and the inside .
Let me break this down point by point , as I see some of these misconceptions come up quite a bit : 1 ) a clear bias towards profit.The LDS ( " Mormon " ) Church does urge its members to pay a tithe of their income , however the money does not go to higher-ups within the church leadership .
In fact , we have one of the few layperson priesthoods and layperson leaderships among all religions in the world .
What that means is that the leaders of congregations , the missionaries , the teachers , and up the ladder are volunteer ( i.e .
unpaid ) positions--absolutely no monetary profit involved .
The tithing instead goes to maintaining church buildings , production/distribution of materials , education , and ( the greatest portion ) charity work .
( The LDS Church , despite being numerically smaller than many other religions , donated some of the largest portions of food , supplies , funds , and labor to various recent disaster sites over the last decade .
) 2 ) Membership policies that serve to isolate its mebership from external influence.I ca n't say I see where this one is coming from , either .
Though the church does host plenty of social events for various age groups , attendance is certainly not mandatory .
I 've never felt pressure to change my group of associates or close contacts... if anything , I 've become closer to my family ( who are not members ) , upon learning more of the importance that the church places on families .
If you are referring to the odd culture of Utah-Mormons , that 's a totally different story of odd cultural quirks arising from a largely homogenous group of people in a small area ; however the majority of Mormons in the U.S. do not live in Utah , and the majority of Mormons in the world do not even live in the U.S.3 ) Extreme polices of secrecy and nondisclosure.Now this one I hear a lot , and I assume it relates to our Temple ceremonies , as we certainly try extremely hard to distribute all of our scripture and doctrine as far and as wide ( and as free ) as we can .
Also , all of our semi-annual conferences when the Prophet and other leaders speak ( the largest and most important church gatherings ) are broadcast over satellite and the internet , and are printed and available through various sources .
We do n't discuss the temple ceremonies because they are highly symbolic and of a sacred and individual nature to us ( we believe that personal revelation is critically involved ) --but there is something critical about this that I want to point out... notice what I said , that we distribute " all of our scripture and doctrine " .
There is no new law or doctrine or secret that comes out in the temple ceremonies that has n't been taught in so many ways so many times throughout scripture .
There 's nothing comparable to Scientology 's holding back of the darkest secrets until you are too deep and too invested to turn around , as in their OT III texts .
4 ) General skirting social norms and laws , such as child labor , marriage/sexuality , contracts , finance , education , etc.I 'm not so certain where you are going with this one... Our views on marriage/sexuality may be more traditional than most modern society ( If you are referring to polygamy , it has been illegal in the church for over a hundred years .
If you are interested in more information about how the polygamy is involved with the church 's history , here is a 65 page historical paper on the subject [ fairlds.org ] by a Mormon M.D. , with hundreds of cited historical references... or a brief few-paragraph informative opinion [ jefflindsay.com ] .
) Child labor ?
Contracts ? I do n't know where those even come from .
Education ? We emphasize education quite a bit more than the average American family... our previous prophet spoke often about how men and women should try to pursue college educations as finances allow .
We even have the nation 's second-largest private university ( with tuition funded partially by tithing , as mentioned above , but open to anyone , members or not ) .
Finances ? Well , we encourage our members to stay out of credit card debt and the like , which could be considered odd nowadays , but seriously ?
Just my few cents on the issue .
Thanks for listening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, the mormons have many of these attributes, but Scientology takes these to a whole new extreme.I certainly agree with your complaints against Scientology, but I definitely have a beef with the first half of your sentence, there.
I'm a recent (a few years back) convert, so I have seen the Mormons from both the outside and the inside.
Let me break this down point by point, as I see some of these misconceptions come up quite a bit:1) a clear bias towards profit.The LDS ("Mormon") Church does urge its members to pay a tithe of their income, however the money does not go to higher-ups within the church leadership.
In fact, we have one of the few layperson priesthoods and layperson leaderships among all religions in the world.
What that means is that the leaders of congregations, the missionaries, the teachers, and up the ladder are volunteer (i.e.
unpaid) positions--absolutely no monetary profit involved.
The tithing instead goes to maintaining church buildings, production/distribution of materials, education, and (the greatest portion) charity work.
(The LDS Church, despite being numerically smaller than many other religions, donated some of the largest portions of food, supplies, funds, and labor to various recent disaster sites over the last decade.
)2) Membership policies that serve to isolate its mebership from external influence.I can't say I see where this one is coming from, either.
Though the church does host plenty of social events for various age groups, attendance is certainly not mandatory.
I've never felt pressure to change my group of associates or close contacts... if anything, I've become closer to my family (who are not members), upon learning more of the importance that the church places on families.
If you are referring to the odd culture of Utah-Mormons, that's a totally different story of odd cultural quirks arising from a largely homogenous group of people in a small area; however the majority of Mormons in the U.S. do not live in Utah, and the majority of Mormons in the world do not even live in the U.S.3) Extreme polices of secrecy and nondisclosure.Now this one I hear a lot, and I assume it relates to our Temple ceremonies, as we certainly try extremely hard to distribute all of our scripture and doctrine as far and as wide (and as free) as we can.
Also, all of our semi-annual conferences when the Prophet and other leaders speak (the largest and most important church gatherings) are broadcast over satellite and the internet, and are printed and available through various sources.
We don't discuss the temple ceremonies because they are highly symbolic and of a sacred and individual nature to us (we believe that personal revelation is critically involved)--but there is something critical about this that I want to point out... notice what I said, that we distribute "all of our scripture and doctrine".
There is no new law or doctrine or secret that comes out in the temple ceremonies that hasn't been taught in so many ways so many times throughout scripture.
There's nothing comparable to Scientology's holding back of the darkest secrets until you are too deep and too invested to turn around, as in their OT III texts.
4) General skirting social norms and laws, such as child labor, marriage/sexuality, contracts, finance, education, etc.I'm not so certain where you are going with this one... Our views on marriage/sexuality may be more traditional than most modern society (If you are referring to polygamy, it has been illegal in the church for over a hundred years.
If you are interested in more information about how the polygamy is involved with the church's history, here is a 65 page historical paper on the subject [fairlds.org] by a Mormon M.D., with hundreds of cited historical references... or a brief few-paragraph informative opinion [jefflindsay.com].
)  Child labor?
Contracts?  I don't know where those even come from.
Education?  We emphasize education quite a bit more than the average American family... our previous prophet spoke often about how men and women should try to pursue college educations as finances allow.
We even have the nation's second-largest private university (with tuition funded partially by tithing, as mentioned above, but open to anyone, members or not).
Finances?  Well, we encourage our members to stay out of credit card debt and the like, which could be considered odd nowadays, but seriously?
Just my few cents on the issue.
Thanks for listening.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135683</id>
	<title>Another utopian failure...</title>
	<author>oljanx</author>
	<datestamp>1243628760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wikipedia was once the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", and all was good.  Then it got too big for its britches.  Now its "the encyclopedia that everyone wants to edit".  Oh well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia was once the " encyclopedia that anyone can edit " , and all was good .
Then it got too big for its britches .
Now its " the encyclopedia that everyone wants to edit " .
Oh well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia was once the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", and all was good.
Then it got too big for its britches.
Now its "the encyclopedia that everyone wants to edit".
Oh well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28150993</id>
	<title>Re:Fine by me</title>
	<author>mcrbids</author>
	<datestamp>1243712460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First off, don't think based on my comments below that I think that Mormons compare to Scientology - as I said, Scientology takes these things to a whole, new extreme. (somewhat like your Mormon splinter group does - takes existing attributes of Mormonism to whole new levels) At some point, these extremes make you a 'cult', and that point is pretty subjective.</p><p>There are people who think that Mormonism is a 'cult' to this day, and it's justified, even if I don't agree with them.</p><p><i>What that means is that the leaders of congregations, the missionaries, the teachers, and up the ladder are volunteer (i.e. unpaid) positions--absolutely no monetary profit involved. The tithing instead goes to maintaining church buildings, production/distribution of materials, education, and (the greatest portion) charity work. </i></p><p>That's certainly true at the lower levels. Talk to the children of a Bishop to see just how busy they are. But what actually happens to money at the higher levels of your church? You have NO IDEA what happens to the money (really!) once your tithes pay for your local costs (which are minor) and are sent "upstairs".</p><p><i>(The LDS Church, despite being numerically smaller than many other religions, donated some of the largest portions of food, supplies, funds, and labor to various recent disaster sites over the last decade.)</i></p><p>So did Bill and Melinda Gates.</p><p><i>If you are referring to the odd culture of Utah-Mormons, that's a totally different story of odd cultural quirks arising from a largely homogenous group of people in a small area; however the majority of Mormons in the U.S. do not live in Utah, and the majority of Mormons in the world do not even live in the U.S.</i></p><p>My experience is with non-Utah Mormons, and there is most <b>definitely</b> pressure to "stay Mormon" - employers hire Hormons, youth are strongly encouraged to date Mormons, etc. Guess we'll have to disagree, here.</p><p><i>There is no new law or doctrine or secret that comes out in the temple ceremonies that hasn't been taught in so many ways so many times throughout scripture. There's nothing comparable to Scientology's holding back of the darkest secrets until you are too deep and too invested to turn around, as in their OT III texts.</i></p><p>Guess you haven't done your endowments, then. Or gotten married? Have you considered just how "close" your family will feel when they find out that they can't attend your wedding?</p><p><i>(If you are referring to polygamy, it has been illegal in the church for over a hundred years)</i></p><p>Polygamy? Well, yeah, it was necessary to join the United States and all that. =/</p><p>And I'm not saying that Mormonism skirts child labor laws or contacts, those are just examples of social norms that can be skirted by CULTS. (EG: Scientology - have you ever heard of a Billion year contract anywhere else?)</p><p>A social norm that Mormons DO skirt, however, is one of social relations - missionaries, both young and old, go door-to-door to "spread the word". It's a socially awkward situation when you have to tell two people in suits on a Tuesday that you aren't interested....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First off , do n't think based on my comments below that I think that Mormons compare to Scientology - as I said , Scientology takes these things to a whole , new extreme .
( somewhat like your Mormon splinter group does - takes existing attributes of Mormonism to whole new levels ) At some point , these extremes make you a 'cult ' , and that point is pretty subjective.There are people who think that Mormonism is a 'cult ' to this day , and it 's justified , even if I do n't agree with them.What that means is that the leaders of congregations , the missionaries , the teachers , and up the ladder are volunteer ( i.e .
unpaid ) positions--absolutely no monetary profit involved .
The tithing instead goes to maintaining church buildings , production/distribution of materials , education , and ( the greatest portion ) charity work .
That 's certainly true at the lower levels .
Talk to the children of a Bishop to see just how busy they are .
But what actually happens to money at the higher levels of your church ?
You have NO IDEA what happens to the money ( really !
) once your tithes pay for your local costs ( which are minor ) and are sent " upstairs " .
( The LDS Church , despite being numerically smaller than many other religions , donated some of the largest portions of food , supplies , funds , and labor to various recent disaster sites over the last decade .
) So did Bill and Melinda Gates.If you are referring to the odd culture of Utah-Mormons , that 's a totally different story of odd cultural quirks arising from a largely homogenous group of people in a small area ; however the majority of Mormons in the U.S. do not live in Utah , and the majority of Mormons in the world do not even live in the U.S.My experience is with non-Utah Mormons , and there is most definitely pressure to " stay Mormon " - employers hire Hormons , youth are strongly encouraged to date Mormons , etc .
Guess we 'll have to disagree , here.There is no new law or doctrine or secret that comes out in the temple ceremonies that has n't been taught in so many ways so many times throughout scripture .
There 's nothing comparable to Scientology 's holding back of the darkest secrets until you are too deep and too invested to turn around , as in their OT III texts.Guess you have n't done your endowments , then .
Or gotten married ?
Have you considered just how " close " your family will feel when they find out that they ca n't attend your wedding ?
( If you are referring to polygamy , it has been illegal in the church for over a hundred years ) Polygamy ?
Well , yeah , it was necessary to join the United States and all that .
= /And I 'm not saying that Mormonism skirts child labor laws or contacts , those are just examples of social norms that can be skirted by CULTS .
( EG : Scientology - have you ever heard of a Billion year contract anywhere else ?
) A social norm that Mormons DO skirt , however , is one of social relations - missionaries , both young and old , go door-to-door to " spread the word " .
It 's a socially awkward situation when you have to tell two people in suits on a Tuesday that you are n't interested... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First off, don't think based on my comments below that I think that Mormons compare to Scientology - as I said, Scientology takes these things to a whole, new extreme.
(somewhat like your Mormon splinter group does - takes existing attributes of Mormonism to whole new levels) At some point, these extremes make you a 'cult', and that point is pretty subjective.There are people who think that Mormonism is a 'cult' to this day, and it's justified, even if I don't agree with them.What that means is that the leaders of congregations, the missionaries, the teachers, and up the ladder are volunteer (i.e.
unpaid) positions--absolutely no monetary profit involved.
The tithing instead goes to maintaining church buildings, production/distribution of materials, education, and (the greatest portion) charity work.
That's certainly true at the lower levels.
Talk to the children of a Bishop to see just how busy they are.
But what actually happens to money at the higher levels of your church?
You have NO IDEA what happens to the money (really!
) once your tithes pay for your local costs (which are minor) and are sent "upstairs".
(The LDS Church, despite being numerically smaller than many other religions, donated some of the largest portions of food, supplies, funds, and labor to various recent disaster sites over the last decade.
)So did Bill and Melinda Gates.If you are referring to the odd culture of Utah-Mormons, that's a totally different story of odd cultural quirks arising from a largely homogenous group of people in a small area; however the majority of Mormons in the U.S. do not live in Utah, and the majority of Mormons in the world do not even live in the U.S.My experience is with non-Utah Mormons, and there is most definitely pressure to "stay Mormon" - employers hire Hormons, youth are strongly encouraged to date Mormons, etc.
Guess we'll have to disagree, here.There is no new law or doctrine or secret that comes out in the temple ceremonies that hasn't been taught in so many ways so many times throughout scripture.
There's nothing comparable to Scientology's holding back of the darkest secrets until you are too deep and too invested to turn around, as in their OT III texts.Guess you haven't done your endowments, then.
Or gotten married?
Have you considered just how "close" your family will feel when they find out that they can't attend your wedding?
(If you are referring to polygamy, it has been illegal in the church for over a hundred years)Polygamy?
Well, yeah, it was necessary to join the United States and all that.
=/And I'm not saying that Mormonism skirts child labor laws or contacts, those are just examples of social norms that can be skirted by CULTS.
(EG: Scientology - have you ever heard of a Billion year contract anywhere else?
)A social norm that Mormons DO skirt, however, is one of social relations - missionaries, both young and old, go door-to-door to "spread the word".
It's a socially awkward situation when you have to tell two people in suits on a Tuesday that you aren't interested....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28140113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134955</id>
	<title>Re:Tor?</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1243533960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This will only cause them to start using something like Tor or any other method of obscuring their IP. I don't see how an IP ban will be that effective.</p></div><p>

Wikipedia has to do <i>something</i>, and at least will make it more difficult for the CoS to edit pages. The next step could be either banning usernames, or going the legal route and getting an injunction. Heck, maybe they can even use the DMCA (one of the CoS' favorite laws) to go after the church leadership for unauthorized access of their servers. Now wouldn't that be ironic!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This will only cause them to start using something like Tor or any other method of obscuring their IP .
I do n't see how an IP ban will be that effective .
Wikipedia has to do something , and at least will make it more difficult for the CoS to edit pages .
The next step could be either banning usernames , or going the legal route and getting an injunction .
Heck , maybe they can even use the DMCA ( one of the CoS ' favorite laws ) to go after the church leadership for unauthorized access of their servers .
Now would n't that be ironic !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will only cause them to start using something like Tor or any other method of obscuring their IP.
I don't see how an IP ban will be that effective.
Wikipedia has to do something, and at least will make it more difficult for the CoS to edit pages.
The next step could be either banning usernames, or going the legal route and getting an injunction.
Heck, maybe they can even use the DMCA (one of the CoS' favorite laws) to go after the church leadership for unauthorized access of their servers.
Now wouldn't that be ironic!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133695</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135037</id>
	<title>Re:Fine by me</title>
	<author>Concerned Onlooker</author>
	<datestamp>1243534740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>And check out this interesting little <a href="http://www.cracked.com/article\_15974\_p2.html" title="cracked.com">tid bit</a> [cracked.com].  Not all conspiracies are tinfoil hat dreams.  From the article (#2, Operation Snow White):<blockquote><div><p>Apparently, the Church of Scientology managed to perform the largest infiltration of the United States government in history. Ever.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Why is it that humor magazines and TV shows give us the best information these days?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And check out this interesting little tid bit [ cracked.com ] .
Not all conspiracies are tinfoil hat dreams .
From the article ( # 2 , Operation Snow White ) : Apparently , the Church of Scientology managed to perform the largest infiltration of the United States government in history .
Ever . Why is it that humor magazines and TV shows give us the best information these days ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And check out this interesting little tid bit [cracked.com].
Not all conspiracies are tinfoil hat dreams.
From the article (#2, Operation Snow White):Apparently, the Church of Scientology managed to perform the largest infiltration of the United States government in history.
Ever.


Why is it that humor magazines and TV shows give us the best information these days?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134531</id>
	<title>Re:freedom of expression</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243529940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the big issue most people have with scientology isn't that they're free to express themselves - it's that they Lawyer-Nuke ANYONE who says anything even a <i>little bit</i> against them.  And they do it with <i>extreme</i> prejudice.</p><p>Hell, if I had the money to sue anyone who told me I can't draw for defamation... I'd be one <i>seriously</i> rich artist.</p><p>Those with a judeo-christian background who take offense at this approach are, imo, ignorant of the role of The Church (meaning: The Pope) between, say... 400 AD and 1500 AD.  Up until the Protestant Reformation (and well after), the word of The Pope carried more weight than the word of any king in europe.  The Church (of Christianity) smote its enemies with fire and thumbscrew.  The Church (of Scientology) doesn't use thumbscrews.  They use Lawyers.  Lawyers - the 21rst Century Pyre!</p><p>The biggest difference between scientology and cthe Major Religions is that the way in which they come to the world's attention isn't through promulgation, war, or politics - it's through <i>litigation</i>.  Attack, attack, attack, attack, <i>sue</i>.</p><p>Every other religion on the planet offers it up for free, or for the cost of a book or six.  The fact that Scientology has a monetary Barrier To Entry is ultimately - until the appropriate laws are passed - what separates them from the ancient traditions we call "religions."</p><p>The fact they're dicks about it is a different matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the big issue most people have with scientology is n't that they 're free to express themselves - it 's that they Lawyer-Nuke ANYONE who says anything even a little bit against them .
And they do it with extreme prejudice.Hell , if I had the money to sue anyone who told me I ca n't draw for defamation... I 'd be one seriously rich artist.Those with a judeo-christian background who take offense at this approach are , imo , ignorant of the role of The Church ( meaning : The Pope ) between , say... 400 AD and 1500 AD .
Up until the Protestant Reformation ( and well after ) , the word of The Pope carried more weight than the word of any king in europe .
The Church ( of Christianity ) smote its enemies with fire and thumbscrew .
The Church ( of Scientology ) does n't use thumbscrews .
They use Lawyers .
Lawyers - the 21rst Century Pyre ! The biggest difference between scientology and cthe Major Religions is that the way in which they come to the world 's attention is n't through promulgation , war , or politics - it 's through litigation .
Attack , attack , attack , attack , sue.Every other religion on the planet offers it up for free , or for the cost of a book or six .
The fact that Scientology has a monetary Barrier To Entry is ultimately - until the appropriate laws are passed - what separates them from the ancient traditions we call " religions .
" The fact they 're dicks about it is a different matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the big issue most people have with scientology isn't that they're free to express themselves - it's that they Lawyer-Nuke ANYONE who says anything even a little bit against them.
And they do it with extreme prejudice.Hell, if I had the money to sue anyone who told me I can't draw for defamation... I'd be one seriously rich artist.Those with a judeo-christian background who take offense at this approach are, imo, ignorant of the role of The Church (meaning: The Pope) between, say... 400 AD and 1500 AD.
Up until the Protestant Reformation (and well after), the word of The Pope carried more weight than the word of any king in europe.
The Church (of Christianity) smote its enemies with fire and thumbscrew.
The Church (of Scientology) doesn't use thumbscrews.
They use Lawyers.
Lawyers - the 21rst Century Pyre!The biggest difference between scientology and cthe Major Religions is that the way in which they come to the world's attention isn't through promulgation, war, or politics - it's through litigation.
Attack, attack, attack, attack, sue.Every other religion on the planet offers it up for free, or for the cost of a book or six.
The fact that Scientology has a monetary Barrier To Entry is ultimately - until the appropriate laws are passed - what separates them from the ancient traditions we call "religions.
"The fact they're dicks about it is a different matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136755</id>
	<title>Odd...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243599480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it just me, or does the article read like something that might be posted on Something Awful?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it just me , or does the article read like something that might be posted on Something Awful ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it just me, or does the article read like something that might be posted on Something Awful?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931</id>
	<title>Re:Fine by me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243525200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is true that he probably misses the point, in that a project like this has no choice but to sometimes ban those who deliberately and persistently abuse the rules. However, I would love to see the records of those edits that required such drastic action. As much as I despise Scientology, I don't see why their cult should be singled out for direct criticisms in the opening paragraphs of the article, (e.g "cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members"). <br> <br>While this may be true, other cults (oh ok "religions", whats the difference) that do the same thing are being described in completely different way, see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Church\_of\_Jesus\_Christ\_of\_Latter-day\_Saints" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Church\_of\_Jesus\_Christ\_of\_Latter-day\_Saints</a> [wikipedia.org]  This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a newspaper editorial so I think the tone and content of the opening 4 paragraphs I think do need some changes. I am afraid to make them though cause I might get banned from the site.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is true that he probably misses the point , in that a project like this has no choice but to sometimes ban those who deliberately and persistently abuse the rules .
However , I would love to see the records of those edits that required such drastic action .
As much as I despise Scientology , I do n't see why their cult should be singled out for direct criticisms in the opening paragraphs of the article , ( e.g " cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members " ) .
While this may be true , other cults ( oh ok " religions " , whats the difference ) that do the same thing are being described in completely different way , see http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The \ _Church \ _of \ _Jesus \ _Christ \ _of \ _Latter-day \ _Saints [ wikipedia.org ] This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article , not a newspaper editorial so I think the tone and content of the opening 4 paragraphs I think do need some changes .
I am afraid to make them though cause I might get banned from the site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is true that he probably misses the point, in that a project like this has no choice but to sometimes ban those who deliberately and persistently abuse the rules.
However, I would love to see the records of those edits that required such drastic action.
As much as I despise Scientology, I don't see why their cult should be singled out for direct criticisms in the opening paragraphs of the article, (e.g "cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members").
While this may be true, other cults (oh ok "religions", whats the difference) that do the same thing are being described in completely different way, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Church\_of\_Jesus\_Christ\_of\_Latter-day\_Saints [wikipedia.org]  This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a newspaper editorial so I think the tone and content of the opening 4 paragraphs I think do need some changes.
I am afraid to make them though cause I might get banned from the site.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134405</id>
	<title>The South Park episode is all you need to know...</title>
	<author>Trip6</author>
	<datestamp>1243528620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...hilarious and scarily on the money...</htmltext>
<tokenext>...hilarious and scarily on the money.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...hilarious and scarily on the money...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137731</id>
	<title>Re:What Science?</title>
	<author>chord.wav</author>
	<datestamp>1243606860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly! They are to the talking what the sky is to a potatoe.</p><p>(?!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly !
They are to the talking what the sky is to a potatoe. ( ? !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly!
They are to the talking what the sky is to a potatoe.(?!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133797</id>
	<title>Re:Good :)</title>
	<author>Black Sabbath</author>
	<datestamp>1243524420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was halfway through posting a vitriolic response which included this link:<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual\_abuse\_scandal\_in\_the\_Congregation\_of\_Christian\_Brothers#Commission\_to\_Inquire\_into\_Child\_Abuse" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual\_abuse\_scandal\_in\_the\_Congregation\_of\_Christian\_Brothers#Commission\_to\_Inquire\_into\_Child\_Abuse</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>when the light-bulb came on. I can't believe I almost missed the sarcasm. Well done sir.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was halfway through posting a vitriolic response which included this link : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual \ _abuse \ _scandal \ _in \ _the \ _Congregation \ _of \ _Christian \ _Brothers # Commission \ _to \ _Inquire \ _into \ _Child \ _Abuse [ wikipedia.org ] when the light-bulb came on .
I ca n't believe I almost missed the sarcasm .
Well done sir .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was halfway through posting a vitriolic response which included this link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual\_abuse\_scandal\_in\_the\_Congregation\_of\_Christian\_Brothers#Commission\_to\_Inquire\_into\_Child\_Abuse [wikipedia.org]when the light-bulb came on.
I can't believe I almost missed the sarcasm.
Well done sir.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136969</id>
	<title>Re:freedom of expression</title>
	<author>Drakkenmensch</author>
	<datestamp>1243602000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Chomsky was talking about <i>freedom of expression</i>, not <i>freedom of spreading lies and using legal threats or physical violence to shut the hell up those who call out your systematic misinformation</i>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chomsky was talking about freedom of expression , not freedom of spreading lies and using legal threats or physical violence to shut the hell up those who call out your systematic misinformation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chomsky was talking about freedom of expression, not freedom of spreading lies and using legal threats or physical violence to shut the hell up those who call out your systematic misinformation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137329</id>
	<title>No need to single anyone out</title>
	<author>SavvyPlayer</author>
	<datestamp>1243604460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No ban need mention a party by name, rather simply enumerate policy violations that merit said ban. Done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No ban need mention a party by name , rather simply enumerate policy violations that merit said ban .
Done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No ban need mention a party by name, rather simply enumerate policy violations that merit said ban.
Done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135409</id>
	<title>Re:Fine by me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243539240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've just never seen a good explanation of the difference of a cult and a religion that doesn't boil down purely to the difference in number of believers.</p></div><p>Yes, that is the definition. At least Finnish translation for cult ("lahko") would be defined something like "A group of believers whose dogma and rituals are significantly different from their mainstream religion" or something like that. Apparently same is true for English as cult is <a href="http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=cult" title="princeton.edu" rel="nofollow">defined</a> [princeton.edu] "cult (a religion or sect that is generally considered to be unorthodox, extremist, or false)"</p><p>Something being a cult is not itself bad. The amount of followers and the type of dogma just defines it. However, large part of cults have common charasteristics which should (accordingly to my moral code at least) be despised. They include brainwashing, violence, intentional cheating and ruining of lives for profit, etc...</p><p>I am a rather "militant atheist" some would say and I believe that Mormonism is a brainwashing cult for example. I've talked to mormons and know how they have to leave their family, friends, etc. for a long time when they do (practically mandatory) missionary work. They are only allowed to read mormon literature during that time and their pairs change often so they have nothing that mind needs to keep it's protections up.</p><p>This is very different from main christianity, for example, because while I believe both to be false, the amount of intentional brainwashing techniques is a big difference. And scientology is far, far worse than mormonism as they use blackmailing, threatening, etc. tactics.</p><p>They aren't bad because they are a cult. They are bad because they are a brainwashing cult with only intention to bring in more profit by exploiting people in extent unknown to any western religion perhaps since middle ages.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've just never seen a good explanation of the difference of a cult and a religion that does n't boil down purely to the difference in number of believers.Yes , that is the definition .
At least Finnish translation for cult ( " lahko " ) would be defined something like " A group of believers whose dogma and rituals are significantly different from their mainstream religion " or something like that .
Apparently same is true for English as cult is defined [ princeton.edu ] " cult ( a religion or sect that is generally considered to be unorthodox , extremist , or false ) " Something being a cult is not itself bad .
The amount of followers and the type of dogma just defines it .
However , large part of cults have common charasteristics which should ( accordingly to my moral code at least ) be despised .
They include brainwashing , violence , intentional cheating and ruining of lives for profit , etc...I am a rather " militant atheist " some would say and I believe that Mormonism is a brainwashing cult for example .
I 've talked to mormons and know how they have to leave their family , friends , etc .
for a long time when they do ( practically mandatory ) missionary work .
They are only allowed to read mormon literature during that time and their pairs change often so they have nothing that mind needs to keep it 's protections up.This is very different from main christianity , for example , because while I believe both to be false , the amount of intentional brainwashing techniques is a big difference .
And scientology is far , far worse than mormonism as they use blackmailing , threatening , etc .
tactics.They are n't bad because they are a cult .
They are bad because they are a brainwashing cult with only intention to bring in more profit by exploiting people in extent unknown to any western religion perhaps since middle ages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've just never seen a good explanation of the difference of a cult and a religion that doesn't boil down purely to the difference in number of believers.Yes, that is the definition.
At least Finnish translation for cult ("lahko") would be defined something like "A group of believers whose dogma and rituals are significantly different from their mainstream religion" or something like that.
Apparently same is true for English as cult is defined [princeton.edu] "cult (a religion or sect that is generally considered to be unorthodox, extremist, or false)"Something being a cult is not itself bad.
The amount of followers and the type of dogma just defines it.
However, large part of cults have common charasteristics which should (accordingly to my moral code at least) be despised.
They include brainwashing, violence, intentional cheating and ruining of lives for profit, etc...I am a rather "militant atheist" some would say and I believe that Mormonism is a brainwashing cult for example.
I've talked to mormons and know how they have to leave their family, friends, etc.
for a long time when they do (practically mandatory) missionary work.
They are only allowed to read mormon literature during that time and their pairs change often so they have nothing that mind needs to keep it's protections up.This is very different from main christianity, for example, because while I believe both to be false, the amount of intentional brainwashing techniques is a big difference.
And scientology is far, far worse than mormonism as they use blackmailing, threatening, etc.
tactics.They aren't bad because they are a cult.
They are bad because they are a brainwashing cult with only intention to bring in more profit by exploiting people in extent unknown to any western religion perhaps since middle ages.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28139075</id>
	<title>Delicious hypocricy</title>
	<author>TheCabal</author>
	<datestamp>1243613160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see tons of posts every day here of how censorship sucks and how information wants to be free. People piss and moan whenever they're delayed 5 seconds at the airport, or aren't able to climb on their soapbox whenever they want and scream to the masses. But these same people who cry foul when silenced actually cheer when a group of (unpopular) people are silenced...</p><p>You're all a bunch of hypocrites and engineers of your own doom. Freedom means taking the bad with the good. It's not all unicorn farts and rainbows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see tons of posts every day here of how censorship sucks and how information wants to be free .
People piss and moan whenever they 're delayed 5 seconds at the airport , or are n't able to climb on their soapbox whenever they want and scream to the masses .
But these same people who cry foul when silenced actually cheer when a group of ( unpopular ) people are silenced...You 're all a bunch of hypocrites and engineers of your own doom .
Freedom means taking the bad with the good .
It 's not all unicorn farts and rainbows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see tons of posts every day here of how censorship sucks and how information wants to be free.
People piss and moan whenever they're delayed 5 seconds at the airport, or aren't able to climb on their soapbox whenever they want and scream to the masses.
But these same people who cry foul when silenced actually cheer when a group of (unpopular) people are silenced...You're all a bunch of hypocrites and engineers of your own doom.
Freedom means taking the bad with the good.
It's not all unicorn farts and rainbows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134669</id>
	<title>i agree. let's ban wigged out fanatics.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243531380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>including open source fags. they're like a drugged bunch of hare krishna's chanting their mantra. it's a blind mans religion. it's zealotry and bigotry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>including open source fags .
they 're like a drugged bunch of hare krishna 's chanting their mantra .
it 's a blind mans religion .
it 's zealotry and bigotry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>including open source fags.
they're like a drugged bunch of hare krishna's chanting their mantra.
it's a blind mans religion.
it's zealotry and bigotry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134481</id>
	<title>Re:Tor?</title>
	<author>drizek</author>
	<datestamp>1243529520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Deleting something contributed by a "post n run" IP is a lot easier to justify than reverting an edit made by someone  with a registered account and a history. Besides, this will still be effective because 90\% of them won't know how to obscure their IPs. Sure, some of them will, but this might get rid of a good chunk of the crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Deleting something contributed by a " post n run " IP is a lot easier to justify than reverting an edit made by someone with a registered account and a history .
Besides , this will still be effective because 90 \ % of them wo n't know how to obscure their IPs .
Sure , some of them will , but this might get rid of a good chunk of the crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Deleting something contributed by a "post n run" IP is a lot easier to justify than reverting an edit made by someone  with a registered account and a history.
Besides, this will still be effective because 90\% of them won't know how to obscure their IPs.
Sure, some of them will, but this might get rid of a good chunk of the crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133695</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134065</id>
	<title>Re:About Fucking Time</title>
	<author>Foobar of Borg</author>
	<datestamp>1243526100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Jimbo should watch his back; Scientology *DOES NOT* play nice when it doesn't get what it wants.</p></div></blockquote><p>Maybe he should get a few Tom Cruise missiles to fire back at them<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Jimbo should watch his back ; Scientology * DOES NOT * play nice when it does n't get what it wants.Maybe he should get a few Tom Cruise missiles to fire back at them : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jimbo should watch his back; Scientology *DOES NOT* play nice when it doesn't get what it wants.Maybe he should get a few Tom Cruise missiles to fire back at them :-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134357</id>
	<title>IP addresses don't identify users</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243528200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IP addresses don't identify people. They tell routers where to forward packets.</p><p>Can we please move beyond this 1980s idea that IP addresses identify people?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IP addresses do n't identify people .
They tell routers where to forward packets.Can we please move beyond this 1980s idea that IP addresses identify people ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IP addresses don't identify people.
They tell routers where to forward packets.Can we please move beyond this 1980s idea that IP addresses identify people?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133737</id>
	<title>how long before they sue</title>
	<author>youn</author>
	<datestamp>1243523940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how long before they sue wikipedia because they say what they"re doing is unfair<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how long before they sue wikipedia because they say what they " re doing is unfair : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how long before they sue wikipedia because they say what they"re doing is unfair :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134267</id>
	<title>I hope they ban the Boy Scouts of America next</title>
	<author>themeparkphoto</author>
	<datestamp>1243527540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a page that lists famous Boy Scouts and Eagle Scouts.

I always add, with CITATIONS FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES and other sources,

Charles Manson

and

Dennis Rader ("BTK Serial Killer)

and the terrorist group known as the BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA promptly removes it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a page that lists famous Boy Scouts and Eagle Scouts .
I always add , with CITATIONS FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES and other sources , Charles Manson and Dennis Rader ( " BTK Serial Killer ) and the terrorist group known as the BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA promptly removes it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a page that lists famous Boy Scouts and Eagle Scouts.
I always add, with CITATIONS FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES and other sources,

Charles Manson

and

Dennis Rader ("BTK Serial Killer)

and the terrorist group known as the BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA promptly removes it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133645</id>
	<title>It's not their fault!</title>
	<author>MacColossus</author>
	<datestamp>1243523100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Their Thetans made them do it.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Their Thetans made them do it .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their Thetans made them do it.
:-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28138929</id>
	<title>Re:I hope they ban the Boy Scouts of America next</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243612440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List\_of\_Eagle\_Scouts\_(Boy\_Scouts\_of\_America)/Archive\_2006#Charles\_Manson</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk : List \ _of \ _Eagle \ _Scouts \ _ ( Boy \ _Scouts \ _of \ _America ) /Archive \ _2006 # Charles \ _Manson</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List\_of\_Eagle\_Scouts\_(Boy\_Scouts\_of\_America)/Archive\_2006#Charles\_Manson</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136407</id>
	<title>Re:Fine by me</title>
	<author>clemdoc</author>
	<datestamp>1243594740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sometimes that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early\_Christianity" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">doesn't work out so well</a> [wikipedia.org], but it's  never stopped the powers-that-be from trying.</p></div><p>Yeah, like everybody's trying to burn scientologists at the stake. What's next? Soon to be seen in a theatre nearby: Tom Cruise being fed to the lions? (I'd actually go for that)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes that does n't work out so well [ wikipedia.org ] , but it 's never stopped the powers-that-be from trying.Yeah , like everybody 's trying to burn scientologists at the stake .
What 's next ?
Soon to be seen in a theatre nearby : Tom Cruise being fed to the lions ?
( I 'd actually go for that )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes that doesn't work out so well [wikipedia.org], but it's  never stopped the powers-that-be from trying.Yeah, like everybody's trying to burn scientologists at the stake.
What's next?
Soon to be seen in a theatre nearby: Tom Cruise being fed to the lions?
(I'd actually go for that)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135519</id>
	<title>Re:There's an error in the summary...</title>
	<author>Nathrael</author>
	<datestamp>1243540620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"High-profile organization" does not necessarily equate "good organization". The Co$ may be a cult, but nonetheless a quite large and influential one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" High-profile organization " does not necessarily equate " good organization " .
The Co $ may be a cult , but nonetheless a quite large and influential one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"High-profile organization" does not necessarily equate "good organization".
The Co$ may be a cult, but nonetheless a quite large and influential one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133573</id>
	<title>About Fucking Time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243522500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Church of Scientology has a long history of censorship and general Internet fuckery.</p><p><a href="http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/censorware.html" title="factnet.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/censorware.html</a> [factnet.org]</p><p>Two things:</p><p>1. Wikipedia should never lift the ban.<br>2. Jimbo should watch his back; Scientology *DOES NOT* play nice when it doesn't get what it wants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Church of Scientology has a long history of censorship and general Internet fuckery.http : //www.factnet.org/Scientology/censorware.html [ factnet.org ] Two things : 1 .
Wikipedia should never lift the ban.2 .
Jimbo should watch his back ; Scientology * DOES NOT * play nice when it does n't get what it wants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Church of Scientology has a long history of censorship and general Internet fuckery.http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/censorware.html [factnet.org]Two things:1.
Wikipedia should never lift the ban.2.
Jimbo should watch his back; Scientology *DOES NOT* play nice when it doesn't get what it wants.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134869</id>
	<title>Cynical view: cheap publicity stunt</title>
	<author>cheros</author>
	<datestamp>1243533300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see this as "decisive action" or "for the good of us" or (etc.), it's just a publicity stunt.</p><p>Simple target, low maintenance (because few are going to bother to check if they indeed do) and doing this actively would mean having to deal with other things as well which I deem unlikely.</p><p>Are there maybe any funds going somewhere?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see this as " decisive action " or " for the good of us " or ( etc .
) , it 's just a publicity stunt.Simple target , low maintenance ( because few are going to bother to check if they indeed do ) and doing this actively would mean having to deal with other things as well which I deem unlikely.Are there maybe any funds going somewhere ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see this as "decisive action" or "for the good of us" or (etc.
), it's just a publicity stunt.Simple target, low maintenance (because few are going to bother to check if they indeed do) and doing this actively would mean having to deal with other things as well which I deem unlikely.Are there maybe any funds going somewhere?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134219</id>
	<title>Re:Fine by me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243527180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As much as I despise Scientology, I don't see why their cult should be singled out for direct criticisms in the opening paragraphs of the article, (e.g "cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members").

While this may be true, other cults (oh ok "religions", whats the difference) that do the same thing are being described in completely different way, see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Church\_of\_Jesus\_Christ\_of\_Latter-day\_Saints" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Church\_of\_Jesus\_Christ\_of\_Latter-day\_Saints</a> [wikipedia.org]  This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a newspaper editorial so I think the tone and content of the opening 4 paragraphs I think do need some changes. I am afraid to make them though cause I might get banned from the site.</p></div><p>The reason they are singled out for that type of description is there is an enormous amount of evidence to support the description. Church leaders have lied cheated and stolen to support their agenda. The organization has a longstanding harrassment policy against it's detractors. They are extremely good at abusing the legal system to their ends and mostly getting away with it. Other groups most certainly do not come anywhere near the level of abuse that the COS does. Besides that, I don't see the description you refer to in an article right now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as I despise Scientology , I do n't see why their cult should be singled out for direct criticisms in the opening paragraphs of the article , ( e.g " cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members " ) .
While this may be true , other cults ( oh ok " religions " , whats the difference ) that do the same thing are being described in completely different way , see http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The \ _Church \ _of \ _Jesus \ _Christ \ _of \ _Latter-day \ _Saints [ wikipedia.org ] This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article , not a newspaper editorial so I think the tone and content of the opening 4 paragraphs I think do need some changes .
I am afraid to make them though cause I might get banned from the site.The reason they are singled out for that type of description is there is an enormous amount of evidence to support the description .
Church leaders have lied cheated and stolen to support their agenda .
The organization has a longstanding harrassment policy against it 's detractors .
They are extremely good at abusing the legal system to their ends and mostly getting away with it .
Other groups most certainly do not come anywhere near the level of abuse that the COS does .
Besides that , I do n't see the description you refer to in an article right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as I despise Scientology, I don't see why their cult should be singled out for direct criticisms in the opening paragraphs of the article, (e.g "cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members").
While this may be true, other cults (oh ok "religions", whats the difference) that do the same thing are being described in completely different way, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Church\_of\_Jesus\_Christ\_of\_Latter-day\_Saints [wikipedia.org]  This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a newspaper editorial so I think the tone and content of the opening 4 paragraphs I think do need some changes.
I am afraid to make them though cause I might get banned from the site.The reason they are singled out for that type of description is there is an enormous amount of evidence to support the description.
Church leaders have lied cheated and stolen to support their agenda.
The organization has a longstanding harrassment policy against it's detractors.
They are extremely good at abusing the legal system to their ends and mostly getting away with it.
Other groups most certainly do not come anywhere near the level of abuse that the COS does.
Besides that, I don't see the description you refer to in an article right now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134935</id>
	<title>Won't accomplish anything...</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1243533780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All CoS editors will do is edit the article from anonymous locations, such as net cafes.</p><p>Wikipedia being something that anyone can edit is also complete garbage.  You can edit a page, sure, but if you're not a) a pseudo-empiricist (and I emphasise "pseudo," there) or b) a member of the elitist university student cabal, your edits get reverted immediately and without question.  They usually don't even bother to quote the BS policy as an excuse, these days.</p><p>I gave up trying to make regular edits probably close to a year ago now.  The policy is a continually moving target, and they have monthly fads ("weasel words," anyone?) about things they don't like.  I've had stuff reverted for, "sounding too much like a magazine article," whatever the fuck that means.</p><p>It's useless.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All CoS editors will do is edit the article from anonymous locations , such as net cafes.Wikipedia being something that anyone can edit is also complete garbage .
You can edit a page , sure , but if you 're not a ) a pseudo-empiricist ( and I emphasise " pseudo , " there ) or b ) a member of the elitist university student cabal , your edits get reverted immediately and without question .
They usually do n't even bother to quote the BS policy as an excuse , these days.I gave up trying to make regular edits probably close to a year ago now .
The policy is a continually moving target , and they have monthly fads ( " weasel words , " anyone ?
) about things they do n't like .
I 've had stuff reverted for , " sounding too much like a magazine article , " whatever the fuck that means.It 's useless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All CoS editors will do is edit the article from anonymous locations, such as net cafes.Wikipedia being something that anyone can edit is also complete garbage.
You can edit a page, sure, but if you're not a) a pseudo-empiricist (and I emphasise "pseudo," there) or b) a member of the elitist university student cabal, your edits get reverted immediately and without question.
They usually don't even bother to quote the BS policy as an excuse, these days.I gave up trying to make regular edits probably close to a year ago now.
The policy is a continually moving target, and they have monthly fads ("weasel words," anyone?
) about things they don't like.
I've had stuff reverted for, "sounding too much like a magazine article," whatever the fuck that means.It's useless.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28142825</id>
	<title>Re:IP addresses don't identify users</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1243630200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>IP addresses don't identify people. They tell routers where to forward packets.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yeah, in the same way license-plate numbers don't identify people, then just happen to correspond with a name and physical address on file to where bills can be sent, which are them paid by someone...  Who know who?</p><p>Any reasonably-sized network block has ownership information associated with it.  As do the AS numbers used in the BGP announcements, known to those "routers" doing the packet forwarding...</p><blockquote><div><p>Can we please move beyond this 1980s idea that IP addresses identify people?</p></div></blockquote><p>Why?  Nobody complains that your car, or house, or anything else, identify you, even though it's easily possible to allow someone entirely different to use them in your absence.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IP addresses do n't identify people .
They tell routers where to forward packets.Yeah , in the same way license-plate numbers do n't identify people , then just happen to correspond with a name and physical address on file to where bills can be sent , which are them paid by someone... Who know who ? Any reasonably-sized network block has ownership information associated with it .
As do the AS numbers used in the BGP announcements , known to those " routers " doing the packet forwarding...Can we please move beyond this 1980s idea that IP addresses identify people ? Why ?
Nobody complains that your car , or house , or anything else , identify you , even though it 's easily possible to allow someone entirely different to use them in your absence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IP addresses don't identify people.
They tell routers where to forward packets.Yeah, in the same way license-plate numbers don't identify people, then just happen to correspond with a name and physical address on file to where bills can be sent, which are them paid by someone...  Who know who?Any reasonably-sized network block has ownership information associated with it.
As do the AS numbers used in the BGP announcements, known to those "routers" doing the packet forwarding...Can we please move beyond this 1980s idea that IP addresses identify people?Why?
Nobody complains that your car, or house, or anything else, identify you, even though it's easily possible to allow someone entirely different to use them in your absence.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137005</id>
	<title>I think Scientology are crazy nutjobs.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1243602420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But I still think either <em>anyone</em> must have the right to edit, or that whole Wikipedia experiment has failed.</p><p>First we got site lockdowns for non-logged-ins. Then for logged ins. Then blocking of IPs. Then admins enforcing their agenda. Then they planning their agenda together on a mailing list.<br>That's just <em>wrong</em> on so many levels.</p><p>I've thought a bit, about how you can merge the freedom to edit with the ability to filter out nutjobs. And in the process, I found that view are just relative. You can usually not prove that someone is 100\% right or wrong,  because 1. no single person can track the reasoning down to quantum physics, and 2. there still is the missing base of the world formula. So we pretty much always rely on some sensible paradigms and long chains of reasoning. The nutjobs usually are those, that either A) fail in their logic, or B) do not follow the groupthink of what everyone assumes to be correct, but never gets tested.</p><p>Now the problem is, that on Wikipedia, not only (A) gets blocked (which nobody can or wants to check down to the physical base anyway), but (B) too (aka "spin"/"agenda").<br>Don't think that an "agenda" or "spin" is entirely bad. Because unfortunately, pure objectivity is a physically impossible fantasy. People just have to make their logic work for them, with the input they got. And some just got some really weird or different combinations of input.</p><p>So there would be two ways to solve this:</p><p>1. Rigorously enforce logic reasoning, most likely with a special language, with defined semantics. You would then find the reasoning behind everything, down to the most basic paradigms. This would be very great... if it were realistic. ^^<br>Because unfortunately, you would notice, that for some things, you would still, even with rigorous logic, end up with more than one basic paradigm. Because we simply don't know this yet.</p><p>2. Because of the problems with (1), we have to make it possible to create more than one view of a subject. I know this sounds like the argument for creationism (which I strongly oppose). That's why there has to be a second element. Maybe you know how cascading stylesheets (CSS) work. For every element, the interpreter goes trough all the rules, and applies them, by overlaying each rule with the next one, so that it changes in the points of the second rule.<br>Imagine this, but with the rules being people, and the interpreter being you (with software assistance), and the element being the article.<br>So people could put together a "view" on Wikipedia. From collecting specific versions of the articles into a group, and giving it a name. Then others can define their view from using the first view as a basis, and adding some modifications. And so on.<br>The enduser can then choose from the views. He could for example, choose the view of some association of scientists or university, add some "Jon Steward" on top of it for the political things, and season it with some changes that a trusted friend or editor chose. He could also publish that as another "view".</p><p>This would make it possible, to create a completely "clean" (in your eyes) Wikipedia (trough choosing the right "view"), and still allow everything and anything to be said. Even some weirdo's 4chan Wiki view. ^^<br>Of course it would be nicer to be able to enforce logic. But until we found a realistic way, and have a world formula, I think this is our best shot.<br>I rather sacrifice that, than to sacrifice freedom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But I still think either anyone must have the right to edit , or that whole Wikipedia experiment has failed.First we got site lockdowns for non-logged-ins .
Then for logged ins .
Then blocking of IPs .
Then admins enforcing their agenda .
Then they planning their agenda together on a mailing list.That 's just wrong on so many levels.I 've thought a bit , about how you can merge the freedom to edit with the ability to filter out nutjobs .
And in the process , I found that view are just relative .
You can usually not prove that someone is 100 \ % right or wrong , because 1. no single person can track the reasoning down to quantum physics , and 2. there still is the missing base of the world formula .
So we pretty much always rely on some sensible paradigms and long chains of reasoning .
The nutjobs usually are those , that either A ) fail in their logic , or B ) do not follow the groupthink of what everyone assumes to be correct , but never gets tested.Now the problem is , that on Wikipedia , not only ( A ) gets blocked ( which nobody can or wants to check down to the physical base anyway ) , but ( B ) too ( aka " spin " / " agenda " ) .Do n't think that an " agenda " or " spin " is entirely bad .
Because unfortunately , pure objectivity is a physically impossible fantasy .
People just have to make their logic work for them , with the input they got .
And some just got some really weird or different combinations of input.So there would be two ways to solve this : 1 .
Rigorously enforce logic reasoning , most likely with a special language , with defined semantics .
You would then find the reasoning behind everything , down to the most basic paradigms .
This would be very great... if it were realistic .
^ ^ Because unfortunately , you would notice , that for some things , you would still , even with rigorous logic , end up with more than one basic paradigm .
Because we simply do n't know this yet.2 .
Because of the problems with ( 1 ) , we have to make it possible to create more than one view of a subject .
I know this sounds like the argument for creationism ( which I strongly oppose ) .
That 's why there has to be a second element .
Maybe you know how cascading stylesheets ( CSS ) work .
For every element , the interpreter goes trough all the rules , and applies them , by overlaying each rule with the next one , so that it changes in the points of the second rule.Imagine this , but with the rules being people , and the interpreter being you ( with software assistance ) , and the element being the article.So people could put together a " view " on Wikipedia .
From collecting specific versions of the articles into a group , and giving it a name .
Then others can define their view from using the first view as a basis , and adding some modifications .
And so on.The enduser can then choose from the views .
He could for example , choose the view of some association of scientists or university , add some " Jon Steward " on top of it for the political things , and season it with some changes that a trusted friend or editor chose .
He could also publish that as another " view " .This would make it possible , to create a completely " clean " ( in your eyes ) Wikipedia ( trough choosing the right " view " ) , and still allow everything and anything to be said .
Even some weirdo 's 4chan Wiki view .
^ ^ Of course it would be nicer to be able to enforce logic .
But until we found a realistic way , and have a world formula , I think this is our best shot.I rather sacrifice that , than to sacrifice freedom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I still think either anyone must have the right to edit, or that whole Wikipedia experiment has failed.First we got site lockdowns for non-logged-ins.
Then for logged ins.
Then blocking of IPs.
Then admins enforcing their agenda.
Then they planning their agenda together on a mailing list.That's just wrong on so many levels.I've thought a bit, about how you can merge the freedom to edit with the ability to filter out nutjobs.
And in the process, I found that view are just relative.
You can usually not prove that someone is 100\% right or wrong,  because 1. no single person can track the reasoning down to quantum physics, and 2. there still is the missing base of the world formula.
So we pretty much always rely on some sensible paradigms and long chains of reasoning.
The nutjobs usually are those, that either A) fail in their logic, or B) do not follow the groupthink of what everyone assumes to be correct, but never gets tested.Now the problem is, that on Wikipedia, not only (A) gets blocked (which nobody can or wants to check down to the physical base anyway), but (B) too (aka "spin"/"agenda").Don't think that an "agenda" or "spin" is entirely bad.
Because unfortunately, pure objectivity is a physically impossible fantasy.
People just have to make their logic work for them, with the input they got.
And some just got some really weird or different combinations of input.So there would be two ways to solve this:1.
Rigorously enforce logic reasoning, most likely with a special language, with defined semantics.
You would then find the reasoning behind everything, down to the most basic paradigms.
This would be very great... if it were realistic.
^^Because unfortunately, you would notice, that for some things, you would still, even with rigorous logic, end up with more than one basic paradigm.
Because we simply don't know this yet.2.
Because of the problems with (1), we have to make it possible to create more than one view of a subject.
I know this sounds like the argument for creationism (which I strongly oppose).
That's why there has to be a second element.
Maybe you know how cascading stylesheets (CSS) work.
For every element, the interpreter goes trough all the rules, and applies them, by overlaying each rule with the next one, so that it changes in the points of the second rule.Imagine this, but with the rules being people, and the interpreter being you (with software assistance), and the element being the article.So people could put together a "view" on Wikipedia.
From collecting specific versions of the articles into a group, and giving it a name.
Then others can define their view from using the first view as a basis, and adding some modifications.
And so on.The enduser can then choose from the views.
He could for example, choose the view of some association of scientists or university, add some "Jon Steward" on top of it for the political things, and season it with some changes that a trusted friend or editor chose.
He could also publish that as another "view".This would make it possible, to create a completely "clean" (in your eyes) Wikipedia (trough choosing the right "view"), and still allow everything and anything to be said.
Even some weirdo's 4chan Wiki view.
^^Of course it would be nicer to be able to enforce logic.
But until we found a realistic way, and have a world formula, I think this is our best shot.I rather sacrifice that, than to sacrifice freedom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28138051</id>
	<title>On Fire</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243608360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Save me Tom Cruise!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Save me Tom Cruise !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Save me Tom Cruise!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28144143</id>
	<title>Re:how many more people have to die?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243592700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Oaklahoma", is that near Pinesylvania?  Seriously though, the spelling is Oklahoma for those of you who want to find it on Google Earth.  Oklahoma means "Red People" and it is home to the Sooners!  No, I don't know why we call it football when you mostly use your hands to play it.  Just like I don't know why we all use imperial measurements when most of can't even remember how many ounces are in a quart.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Oaklahoma " , is that near Pinesylvania ?
Seriously though , the spelling is Oklahoma for those of you who want to find it on Google Earth .
Oklahoma means " Red People " and it is home to the Sooners !
No , I do n't know why we call it football when you mostly use your hands to play it .
Just like I do n't know why we all use imperial measurements when most of ca n't even remember how many ounces are in a quart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Oaklahoma", is that near Pinesylvania?
Seriously though, the spelling is Oklahoma for those of you who want to find it on Google Earth.
Oklahoma means "Red People" and it is home to the Sooners!
No, I don't know why we call it football when you mostly use your hands to play it.
Just like I don't know why we all use imperial measurements when most of can't even remember how many ounces are in a quart.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133821</id>
	<title>Re:Tor?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243524540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wikipedia doesn't allow Tor users to edit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia does n't allow Tor users to edit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia doesn't allow Tor users to edit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133695</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28142281</id>
	<title>Re:IP addresses don't identify users</title>
	<author>dave420</author>
	<datestamp>1243628040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But IP address blocks identify owners of IP address blocks.  'Nuf said.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But IP address blocks identify owners of IP address blocks .
'Nuf said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But IP address blocks identify owners of IP address blocks.
'Nuf said.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135087</id>
	<title>Re:What Science?</title>
	<author>friedman101</author>
	<datestamp>1243535280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That sort of implies that Scientology is the red-headed stepchild of science. I'd say Scientology is to science what peach cobbler is to rainbows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That sort of implies that Scientology is the red-headed stepchild of science .
I 'd say Scientology is to science what peach cobbler is to rainbows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That sort of implies that Scientology is the red-headed stepchild of science.
I'd say Scientology is to science what peach cobbler is to rainbows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133529</id>
	<title>nice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243522260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but better watch out for those Thetans</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but better watch out for those Thetans</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but better watch out for those Thetans</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133779</id>
	<title>Re:Good :)</title>
	<author>McGiraf</author>
	<datestamp>1243524300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"and don't try to convert anyone or make people believe what we believe."</p><p>hum, maybe less than before<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" and do n't try to convert anyone or make people believe what we believe .
" hum , maybe less than before .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"and don't try to convert anyone or make people believe what we believe.
"hum, maybe less than before ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28147641</id>
	<title>Re:I think Scientology are crazy nutjobs.</title>
	<author>seebs</author>
	<datestamp>1243626720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Wikipedia experiment always allowed for taking more thorough action against malicious actors.  Nothing's failing; it's working as designed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Wikipedia experiment always allowed for taking more thorough action against malicious actors .
Nothing 's failing ; it 's working as designed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Wikipedia experiment always allowed for taking more thorough action against malicious actors.
Nothing's failing; it's working as designed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133699</id>
	<title>Scientology and earthlink.net</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243523580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't the Church of Scientology own (a big stake in) earthlink.net some years ago? Is this still the case? If so, does this mean that this ISP's users will be banned from editing Wikipedia?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't the Church of Scientology own ( a big stake in ) earthlink.net some years ago ?
Is this still the case ?
If so , does this mean that this ISP 's users will be banned from editing Wikipedia ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't the Church of Scientology own (a big stake in) earthlink.net some years ago?
Is this still the case?
If so, does this mean that this ISP's users will be banned from editing Wikipedia?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137171</id>
	<title>Re:I hope they ban the Boy Scouts of America next</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243603560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm afraid that I can't find a reference for this.  Could you please provide one?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm afraid that I ca n't find a reference for this .
Could you please provide one ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm afraid that I can't find a reference for this.
Could you please provide one?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28145305</id>
	<title>Reg Oversimplifies Wikipedia's Ruling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243599540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some of those who are crowing about this decision may have RTFA, but apparently didn't go on to read the actual <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests\_for\_arbitration/Scientology#Findings\_of\_fact" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia ArbCom ruling</a> [wikipedia.org]. That decision is not as one-sided as the Register makes it sound. It recognizes that there are editors on both sides that have been abusive, and sanctions some of the hardcore Scientology critics as well.</p><p>Some anti-Scientologists will adopt the same "ends justifies the means" tactics that they criticize Scientology for. For instance, on Amazon, I saw that one of the reviewers bashing the book Battlefield Earth was faking it. He described a couple of things that were in the movie, but not the book, like "fighter jet aircraft built 1000 years ago" still being operational. (In the book, the humans use captured alien aircraft.) Apparently this person hated L. Ron Hubbard enough to pretend to have read the book, so he could trash it. Ironically, at the time this totally false review was rated the "most helpful," and it is still "50 of 66" helpful.</p><p>Wikipedia ArbCom has made some bone-headed decisions in the past, so I'm glad that they were able to recognize that both Scientologists and anti-Scientologists are part of the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of those who are crowing about this decision may have RTFA , but apparently did n't go on to read the actual Wikipedia ArbCom ruling [ wikipedia.org ] .
That decision is not as one-sided as the Register makes it sound .
It recognizes that there are editors on both sides that have been abusive , and sanctions some of the hardcore Scientology critics as well.Some anti-Scientologists will adopt the same " ends justifies the means " tactics that they criticize Scientology for .
For instance , on Amazon , I saw that one of the reviewers bashing the book Battlefield Earth was faking it .
He described a couple of things that were in the movie , but not the book , like " fighter jet aircraft built 1000 years ago " still being operational .
( In the book , the humans use captured alien aircraft .
) Apparently this person hated L. Ron Hubbard enough to pretend to have read the book , so he could trash it .
Ironically , at the time this totally false review was rated the " most helpful , " and it is still " 50 of 66 " helpful.Wikipedia ArbCom has made some bone-headed decisions in the past , so I 'm glad that they were able to recognize that both Scientologists and anti-Scientologists are part of the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of those who are crowing about this decision may have RTFA, but apparently didn't go on to read the actual Wikipedia ArbCom ruling [wikipedia.org].
That decision is not as one-sided as the Register makes it sound.
It recognizes that there are editors on both sides that have been abusive, and sanctions some of the hardcore Scientology critics as well.Some anti-Scientologists will adopt the same "ends justifies the means" tactics that they criticize Scientology for.
For instance, on Amazon, I saw that one of the reviewers bashing the book Battlefield Earth was faking it.
He described a couple of things that were in the movie, but not the book, like "fighter jet aircraft built 1000 years ago" still being operational.
(In the book, the humans use captured alien aircraft.
) Apparently this person hated L. Ron Hubbard enough to pretend to have read the book, so he could trash it.
Ironically, at the time this totally false review was rated the "most helpful," and it is still "50 of 66" helpful.Wikipedia ArbCom has made some bone-headed decisions in the past, so I'm glad that they were able to recognize that both Scientologists and anti-Scientologists are part of the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134093</id>
	<title>Devious alternatives</title>
	<author>LoudMusic</author>
	<datestamp>1243526400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've wondered if it would be feasible to have a dedicated Wikipedia server that is dedicated to 'banned' accounts. Instead of marking the accounts banned, you just mark them to go to this private dedicated server. That way they continue to make edits not realizing that no one else is seeing them. Even allow them to police themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've wondered if it would be feasible to have a dedicated Wikipedia server that is dedicated to 'banned ' accounts .
Instead of marking the accounts banned , you just mark them to go to this private dedicated server .
That way they continue to make edits not realizing that no one else is seeing them .
Even allow them to police themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've wondered if it would be feasible to have a dedicated Wikipedia server that is dedicated to 'banned' accounts.
Instead of marking the accounts banned, you just mark them to go to this private dedicated server.
That way they continue to make edits not realizing that no one else is seeing them.
Even allow them to police themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28138641</id>
	<title>Re:I hope they ban the Boy Scouts of America next</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243610940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would say they are infamous and not famous, but that depends on how you look at it I suppose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say they are infamous and not famous , but that depends on how you look at it I suppose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say they are infamous and not famous, but that depends on how you look at it I suppose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135945</id>
	<title>Check out the BBC documentary</title>
	<author>SamoVasGledamo</author>
	<datestamp>1243588680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>called "Scientology and me". A guy from the investigative reporting show "Panorama" went to the US to interview members of the cult, its former members and current opponents. He ends up being spied on and hassled in a very in-your-face fashion.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology\_and\_Me" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology\_and\_Me</a> [wikipedia.org]

And here's the episode:

<a href="http://bit.ly/snNZ4" title="bit.ly" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/snNZ4</a> [bit.ly]</htmltext>
<tokenext>called " Scientology and me " .
A guy from the investigative reporting show " Panorama " went to the US to interview members of the cult , its former members and current opponents .
He ends up being spied on and hassled in a very in-your-face fashion .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology \ _and \ _Me [ wikipedia.org ] And here 's the episode : http : //bit.ly/snNZ4 [ bit.ly ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>called "Scientology and me".
A guy from the investigative reporting show "Panorama" went to the US to interview members of the cult, its former members and current opponents.
He ends up being spied on and hassled in a very in-your-face fashion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology\_and\_Me [wikipedia.org]

And here's the episode:

http://bit.ly/snNZ4 [bit.ly]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134133</id>
	<title>So ...</title>
	<author>LordKaT</author>
	<datestamp>1243526580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now that Wikipedia has been the Church of Scientology from editing church-related materials, does this mean Jesus will come back?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that Wikipedia has been the Church of Scientology from editing church-related materials , does this mean Jesus will come back ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that Wikipedia has been the Church of Scientology from editing church-related materials, does this mean Jesus will come back?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135623</id>
	<title>Re:Tor?</title>
	<author>rrohbeck</author>
	<datestamp>1243628160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There relatively few exit nodes worldwide (a few 100) so expect all TOR nodes to be banned soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There relatively few exit nodes worldwide ( a few 100 ) so expect all TOR nodes to be banned soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There relatively few exit nodes worldwide (a few 100) so expect all TOR nodes to be banned soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133695</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28138599</id>
	<title>They're on VPN's anyway</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243610700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to footage I have seen, all Scientology members are issued an internet cd.  It's basically a vpn they install on their computers which routes all traffic through the "chruch's" network.  So even in their homes the internet is censored.  This should stop even home users from editing Wikipedia pages because the traffic is actually going through the church's proxy servers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to footage I have seen , all Scientology members are issued an internet cd .
It 's basically a vpn they install on their computers which routes all traffic through the " chruch 's " network .
So even in their homes the internet is censored .
This should stop even home users from editing Wikipedia pages because the traffic is actually going through the church 's proxy servers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to footage I have seen, all Scientology members are issued an internet cd.
It's basically a vpn they install on their computers which routes all traffic through the "chruch's" network.
So even in their homes the internet is censored.
This should stop even home users from editing Wikipedia pages because the traffic is actually going through the church's proxy servers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134965</id>
	<title>Re:Fine by me</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1243534020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Scientology is currently everyone's favorite whipping boy. Followers of larger and more powerful religions don't want to get into a debate about whose beliefs are nuttier, because they're all about equally nutty when you get right down to it.</p></div><p>Let me just point out that this is not a question of which religion is stupider; to me as a convinced atheist they are all equally meaningless, but there are some that are far more harmful than others. Scientology is way out there, not because of what they believe in, according to their books, but because they behave to all intents and purposes as a dangerous and unscrupulous criminal organisation. The first thing they do to new members is make them deeply indebted to the organization by pushing them through meaningless "courses" that get exponentially more expensive. And they suppress any criticism with extremely vicious attacks on those who are critical - as well as their familes.</p><p>Calling Scientlogy merely a cult is way too generous. They are a criminal organisation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Scientology is currently everyone 's favorite whipping boy .
Followers of larger and more powerful religions do n't want to get into a debate about whose beliefs are nuttier , because they 're all about equally nutty when you get right down to it.Let me just point out that this is not a question of which religion is stupider ; to me as a convinced atheist they are all equally meaningless , but there are some that are far more harmful than others .
Scientology is way out there , not because of what they believe in , according to their books , but because they behave to all intents and purposes as a dangerous and unscrupulous criminal organisation .
The first thing they do to new members is make them deeply indebted to the organization by pushing them through meaningless " courses " that get exponentially more expensive .
And they suppress any criticism with extremely vicious attacks on those who are critical - as well as their familes.Calling Scientlogy merely a cult is way too generous .
They are a criminal organisation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scientology is currently everyone's favorite whipping boy.
Followers of larger and more powerful religions don't want to get into a debate about whose beliefs are nuttier, because they're all about equally nutty when you get right down to it.Let me just point out that this is not a question of which religion is stupider; to me as a convinced atheist they are all equally meaningless, but there are some that are far more harmful than others.
Scientology is way out there, not because of what they believe in, according to their books, but because they behave to all intents and purposes as a dangerous and unscrupulous criminal organisation.
The first thing they do to new members is make them deeply indebted to the organization by pushing them through meaningless "courses" that get exponentially more expensive.
And they suppress any criticism with extremely vicious attacks on those who are critical - as well as their familes.Calling Scientlogy merely a cult is way too generous.
They are a criminal organisation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137655</id>
	<title>Re:Yay</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1243606500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The evangelicals already took their ball away and now nobody plays with <a href="http://www.conservapedia.com/Main\_Page" title="conservapedia.com" rel="nofollow">them</a> [conservapedia.com], however if there was a cult of Christians as dedicated to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology\_vs.\_the\_Internet" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">spreading misinformation</a> [wikipedia.org], they too should be banned (as should a cult of atheists with a similar goal)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The evangelicals already took their ball away and now nobody plays with them [ conservapedia.com ] , however if there was a cult of Christians as dedicated to spreading misinformation [ wikipedia.org ] , they too should be banned ( as should a cult of atheists with a similar goal )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The evangelicals already took their ball away and now nobody plays with them [conservapedia.com], however if there was a cult of Christians as dedicated to spreading misinformation [wikipedia.org], they too should be banned (as should a cult of atheists with a similar goal)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134815</id>
	<title>Re:Fine by me</title>
	<author>SpeZek</author>
	<datestamp>1243532700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Church leaders have lied cheated and stolen to support their agenda. The organization has a longstanding harrassment policy against it's detractors. They are extremely good at abusing the legal system to their ends and mostly getting away with it. Other groups most certainly do not come anywhere near the level of abuse that the <b> <i>Roman Catholic Church</i> </b> does</p></div><p>
It's all the same, I'm not just singling out the Vatican. When you live beside a mushroom plant for most of your life, you forget about the smell. Scientology is just the new manure repository.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Church leaders have lied cheated and stolen to support their agenda .
The organization has a longstanding harrassment policy against it 's detractors .
They are extremely good at abusing the legal system to their ends and mostly getting away with it .
Other groups most certainly do not come anywhere near the level of abuse that the Roman Catholic Church does It 's all the same , I 'm not just singling out the Vatican .
When you live beside a mushroom plant for most of your life , you forget about the smell .
Scientology is just the new manure repository .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Church leaders have lied cheated and stolen to support their agenda.
The organization has a longstanding harrassment policy against it's detractors.
They are extremely good at abusing the legal system to their ends and mostly getting away with it.
Other groups most certainly do not come anywhere near the level of abuse that the  Roman Catholic Church  does
It's all the same, I'm not just singling out the Vatican.
When you live beside a mushroom plant for most of your life, you forget about the smell.
Scientology is just the new manure repository.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136181</id>
	<title>Re:IP addresses don't identify users</title>
	<author>Lars T.</author>
	<datestamp>1243591680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>IP addresses don't identify people. They tell routers where to forward packets.</p><p>Can we please move beyond this 1980s idea that IP addresses identify people?</p></div><p>Well, they also identify where those packets come from. And for some strange reason a lot of edits posting COS in an unbelievably good light (including many removing valid criticism) do come from IP addresses registered to the COS.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IP addresses do n't identify people .
They tell routers where to forward packets.Can we please move beyond this 1980s idea that IP addresses identify people ? Well , they also identify where those packets come from .
And for some strange reason a lot of edits posting COS in an unbelievably good light ( including many removing valid criticism ) do come from IP addresses registered to the COS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IP addresses don't identify people.
They tell routers where to forward packets.Can we please move beyond this 1980s idea that IP addresses identify people?Well, they also identify where those packets come from.
And for some strange reason a lot of edits posting COS in an unbelievably good light (including many removing valid criticism) do come from IP addresses registered to the COS.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137057</id>
	<title>Re:Fine by me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243602720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, Scientology (and other cults) do things I've never heard of religions doing (since the Middle Ages):</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>An attempt to vilify, ostrecize, and isolate people who leave.</p></div><p>I was mostly with you until this one.</p><p>The feature of Scientology that makes it deserve this treatment by wikipedia isn't any of the above, anyway - it's the consistent attempts to edit wikipedia in bad faith that have gotten them blocked.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , Scientology ( and other cults ) do things I 've never heard of religions doing ( since the Middle Ages ) : An attempt to vilify , ostrecize , and isolate people who leave.I was mostly with you until this one.The feature of Scientology that makes it deserve this treatment by wikipedia is n't any of the above , anyway - it 's the consistent attempts to edit wikipedia in bad faith that have gotten them blocked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, Scientology (and other cults) do things I've never heard of religions doing (since the Middle Ages):An attempt to vilify, ostrecize, and isolate people who leave.I was mostly with you until this one.The feature of Scientology that makes it deserve this treatment by wikipedia isn't any of the above, anyway - it's the consistent attempts to edit wikipedia in bad faith that have gotten them blocked.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133829</id>
	<title>Re:About Fucking Time</title>
	<author>dgcaste</author>
	<datestamp>1243524600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>No it doesn't.<br> <br>

My brother in law is a practicing Scientologist, and he works at the "Church" in San Diego.<br> <br>

He's explained to me time and time again that the church's position is "if you're not with us, you're against us", and that they defend their territory without impunity. Even perceived threats are great game.<br> <br>

When I ask him, "how can you trust an institution that is so legally violent? if it wanted to be judged by its merits, it shouldn't be litigating the hell out of everyone that stands in its way!", he responds "our opponents deserve litigation because they intend to suppress us". It is quite frustrating to have these conversations with him.<br> <br>

Even more interestingly is that inter-church issues are not taken to court, in fact, to take an internal quarrel to court is grounds from a church ban. They have their own "ethics committees" that see such cases, but they generally follow their own laws and not those of the locale they're in.<br> <br>

So I asked him, "if it's a matter of a constitutional issue, why wouldn't you take it up to the Supreme Court?" and his reply is "we don't trust or expect the legal system to understand how we do things."<br> <br>

I'm quite sure he didn't see the double standard in his views - litigation is good, when it's convenient for the church to litigate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No it does n't .
My brother in law is a practicing Scientologist , and he works at the " Church " in San Diego .
He 's explained to me time and time again that the church 's position is " if you 're not with us , you 're against us " , and that they defend their territory without impunity .
Even perceived threats are great game .
When I ask him , " how can you trust an institution that is so legally violent ?
if it wanted to be judged by its merits , it should n't be litigating the hell out of everyone that stands in its way !
" , he responds " our opponents deserve litigation because they intend to suppress us " .
It is quite frustrating to have these conversations with him .
Even more interestingly is that inter-church issues are not taken to court , in fact , to take an internal quarrel to court is grounds from a church ban .
They have their own " ethics committees " that see such cases , but they generally follow their own laws and not those of the locale they 're in .
So I asked him , " if it 's a matter of a constitutional issue , why would n't you take it up to the Supreme Court ?
" and his reply is " we do n't trust or expect the legal system to understand how we do things .
" I 'm quite sure he did n't see the double standard in his views - litigation is good , when it 's convenient for the church to litigate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No it doesn't.
My brother in law is a practicing Scientologist, and he works at the "Church" in San Diego.
He's explained to me time and time again that the church's position is "if you're not with us, you're against us", and that they defend their territory without impunity.
Even perceived threats are great game.
When I ask him, "how can you trust an institution that is so legally violent?
if it wanted to be judged by its merits, it shouldn't be litigating the hell out of everyone that stands in its way!
", he responds "our opponents deserve litigation because they intend to suppress us".
It is quite frustrating to have these conversations with him.
Even more interestingly is that inter-church issues are not taken to court, in fact, to take an internal quarrel to court is grounds from a church ban.
They have their own "ethics committees" that see such cases, but they generally follow their own laws and not those of the locale they're in.
So I asked him, "if it's a matter of a constitutional issue, why wouldn't you take it up to the Supreme Court?
" and his reply is "we don't trust or expect the legal system to understand how we do things.
" 

I'm quite sure he didn't see the double standard in his views - litigation is good, when it's convenient for the church to litigate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133569</id>
	<title>Operation Chanology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243522500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's about time a certain group of miscreants had a success in their fight against the Church of Scientology.

Good on them I say!

AC, for obvious reasons.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's about time a certain group of miscreants had a success in their fight against the Church of Scientology .
Good on them I say !
AC , for obvious reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's about time a certain group of miscreants had a success in their fight against the Church of Scientology.
Good on them I say!
AC, for obvious reasons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134667</id>
	<title>Re:Fine by me</title>
	<author>E IS mC(Square)</author>
	<datestamp>1243531380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well said, sir.
<br> <br>
A religion = a cult that has survived long enough to reach critical mass</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well said , sir .
A religion = a cult that has survived long enough to reach critical mass</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well said, sir.
A religion = a cult that has survived long enough to reach critical mass</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134189</id>
	<title>Re:Fine by me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243527000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Scientology is currently everyone's favorite whipping boy.  Followers of larger and more powerful religions don't want to get into a debate about whose beliefs are nuttier, because they're all about equally nutty when you get right down to it.  So instead they label it a "cult" and try to make it go away.  Sometimes that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early\_Christianity" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">doesn't work out so well</a> [wikipedia.org], but it's  never stopped the powers-that-be from trying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scientology is currently everyone 's favorite whipping boy .
Followers of larger and more powerful religions do n't want to get into a debate about whose beliefs are nuttier , because they 're all about equally nutty when you get right down to it .
So instead they label it a " cult " and try to make it go away .
Sometimes that does n't work out so well [ wikipedia.org ] , but it 's never stopped the powers-that-be from trying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scientology is currently everyone's favorite whipping boy.
Followers of larger and more powerful religions don't want to get into a debate about whose beliefs are nuttier, because they're all about equally nutty when you get right down to it.
So instead they label it a "cult" and try to make it go away.
Sometimes that doesn't work out so well [wikipedia.org], but it's  never stopped the powers-that-be from trying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137775</id>
	<title>Re:Fine by me</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1243607100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Other smaller religions and factions are similarly destructive, like the Mormon faction that still practices polygamy</i></p><p>What?</p><p>There exist non-religious people who are poly. And plenty of people claim that monogamous marriage is a "religious" thing, and use that as an argument to control who should be able to get married. I find it curious that when it comes to poly, connections to religion is seen as a <i>bad</i> thing, but with monogamy, connection to religion is seen as a good thing. Which is it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Other smaller religions and factions are similarly destructive , like the Mormon faction that still practices polygamyWhat ? There exist non-religious people who are poly .
And plenty of people claim that monogamous marriage is a " religious " thing , and use that as an argument to control who should be able to get married .
I find it curious that when it comes to poly , connections to religion is seen as a bad thing , but with monogamy , connection to religion is seen as a good thing .
Which is it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other smaller religions and factions are similarly destructive, like the Mormon faction that still practices polygamyWhat?There exist non-religious people who are poly.
And plenty of people claim that monogamous marriage is a "religious" thing, and use that as an argument to control who should be able to get married.
I find it curious that when it comes to poly, connections to religion is seen as a bad thing, but with monogamy, connection to religion is seen as a good thing.
Which is it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135585</id>
	<title>Interesting documentary on Scientology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243627860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's an interesting documentary shot by the BBC's Panorama show about Scientology. The head journalist goes to the US to talk to Scientologists, ex-Scientologists and CoS-bashers, and ends up being the object of the CoS's rather in-your-face investigation.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology\_and\_Me</p><p>A link to the episode is easily found on mininova.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's an interesting documentary shot by the BBC 's Panorama show about Scientology .
The head journalist goes to the US to talk to Scientologists , ex-Scientologists and CoS-bashers , and ends up being the object of the CoS 's rather in-your-face investigation.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology \ _and \ _MeA link to the episode is easily found on mininova .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's an interesting documentary shot by the BBC's Panorama show about Scientology.
The head journalist goes to the US to talk to Scientologists, ex-Scientologists and CoS-bashers, and ends up being the object of the CoS's rather in-your-face investigation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology\_and\_MeA link to the episode is easily found on mininova.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137867</id>
	<title>Re:Fine by me</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1243607580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Other smaller religions and factions are similarly destructive, like the Mormon faction that still practices polygamy</p></div><p>Just checking: is it polygamy that's destructive, or is it some other practice by the same faction?</p><p>It's somewhat easy to jump to the former conclusion based off what you said---I don't think that's the right thing to do (a priori).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Other smaller religions and factions are similarly destructive , like the Mormon faction that still practices polygamyJust checking : is it polygamy that 's destructive , or is it some other practice by the same faction ? It 's somewhat easy to jump to the former conclusion based off what you said---I do n't think that 's the right thing to do ( a priori ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other smaller religions and factions are similarly destructive, like the Mormon faction that still practices polygamyJust checking: is it polygamy that's destructive, or is it some other practice by the same faction?It's somewhat easy to jump to the former conclusion based off what you said---I don't think that's the right thing to do (a priori).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134583</id>
	<title>How dare they ban us?</title>
	<author>presidenteloco</author>
	<datestamp>1243530540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We at the Science of Churchology speak nothing but the truth!</p><p>We preach the attainment of happiness through the understanding<br>of the evolution of religion.</p><p>We will not be SILENCED!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We at the Science of Churchology speak nothing but the truth ! We preach the attainment of happiness through the understandingof the evolution of religion.We will not be SILENCED !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We at the Science of Churchology speak nothing but the truth!We preach the attainment of happiness through the understandingof the evolution of religion.We will not be SILENCED!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28141047</id>
	<title>Re:Fine by me</title>
	<author>aaandre</author>
	<datestamp>1243623120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's more difficult to sue someone for satire.</p><p>And, my guess is, John Stewart's directive is not "Sell X party's policy (or you're fired)." but rather "Make it funny and keep the ratings up."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's more difficult to sue someone for satire.And , my guess is , John Stewart 's directive is not " Sell X party 's policy ( or you 're fired ) .
" but rather " Make it funny and keep the ratings up .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's more difficult to sue someone for satire.And, my guess is, John Stewart's directive is not "Sell X party's policy (or you're fired).
" but rather "Make it funny and keep the ratings up.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135037</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134527</id>
	<title>Re:Fine by me</title>
	<author>clarkkent09</author>
	<datestamp>1243529940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've just never seen a good explanation of the difference of a cult and a religion that doesn't boil down purely to the difference in number of believers. I read the article in question and I'm still completely confused. <br> <br>

<i>Hassan distinguishes between what he terms as destructive cults and benign cults. A destructive cult, according to Hassan, has a "pyramid-shaped authoritarian regime with a person or group of people that have dictatorial control." and "uses deception in recruiting new members." In contrast, benign cults are, according to Hassan, "any group of people who have a set of beliefs and rituals that are non-mainstream."</i> <br> <br>So benign cults are not a bad thing at all then? And "destructive" cult definition pretty much exactly matches Catholic church?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've just never seen a good explanation of the difference of a cult and a religion that does n't boil down purely to the difference in number of believers .
I read the article in question and I 'm still completely confused .
Hassan distinguishes between what he terms as destructive cults and benign cults .
A destructive cult , according to Hassan , has a " pyramid-shaped authoritarian regime with a person or group of people that have dictatorial control .
" and " uses deception in recruiting new members .
" In contrast , benign cults are , according to Hassan , " any group of people who have a set of beliefs and rituals that are non-mainstream .
" So benign cults are not a bad thing at all then ?
And " destructive " cult definition pretty much exactly matches Catholic church ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've just never seen a good explanation of the difference of a cult and a religion that doesn't boil down purely to the difference in number of believers.
I read the article in question and I'm still completely confused.
Hassan distinguishes between what he terms as destructive cults and benign cults.
A destructive cult, according to Hassan, has a "pyramid-shaped authoritarian regime with a person or group of people that have dictatorial control.
" and "uses deception in recruiting new members.
" In contrast, benign cults are, according to Hassan, "any group of people who have a set of beliefs and rituals that are non-mainstream.
"  So benign cults are not a bad thing at all then?
And "destructive" cult definition pretty much exactly matches Catholic church?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136067</id>
	<title>Re:Fine by me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243590240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The use of hypnosis and other techniquies aimed at the un/subconcious.</p></div><p>Well "faith healing" and glossolalia fall under "hypnosis and other techniquies aimed at the un/subconcious" and they are used by many Christian groups and some other religions. But you are right in that Scientology is much worse than average religion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The use of hypnosis and other techniquies aimed at the un/subconcious.Well " faith healing " and glossolalia fall under " hypnosis and other techniquies aimed at the un/subconcious " and they are used by many Christian groups and some other religions .
But you are right in that Scientology is much worse than average religion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The use of hypnosis and other techniquies aimed at the un/subconcious.Well "faith healing" and glossolalia fall under "hypnosis and other techniquies aimed at the un/subconcious" and they are used by many Christian groups and some other religions.
But you are right in that Scientology is much worse than average religion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136487</id>
	<title>Re:Fine by me</title>
	<author>mdmkolbe</author>
	<datestamp>1243596000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's hard to go wrong with mocking someone</p></div><p>I disagree.  Mocking is a rhetorical tool without(*) logical content.  It is primarily an emotional appeal (i.e. pathos).  It has little place(**) in an honest discussion.  Manipulating peoples emotions in this way to make them arrive at conclusions non-logically is one of the reasons that people dislike Scientology(***).</p><p>Consider for example the mocking statement "Smart, intellectually honest and Scientolist: you can be any two but not all three".  It might sound like a great zinger, but it can be applied to any intelectual group you don't like: Conservative, Liberal, Christian, Buddhist, you name it.  Just watch any comedian or "mock-umentary" director and you will quickly realize that anything can be mocked regardless of how good or bad it is.</p><p>Finally, mocking runs a significant risk of alienating the very people you might be trying to reach.  If a person is pro-Scientology, then mocking is likely to make them hunker down and be disposed to blow-off the rest of your argument. On the other hand if a person is neutral on the subject, then mocking makes your side look childish and mean spirited and thus the person is again more likely to blow-off the rest of your argument.</p><p>(*) Even when mocking wraps a kernel of logic, the mocking is only a wrapper that adds no logic of its own</p><p>(**) I believe it is possible to sparingly use mocking in a constructive way when properly balanced by the other aspects of the rhetorical triangle, but that is a far cry from "It's hard to go wrong with mocking"</p><p>(***) Admittedly though, there are big differences in degree</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's hard to go wrong with mocking someoneI disagree .
Mocking is a rhetorical tool without ( * ) logical content .
It is primarily an emotional appeal ( i.e .
pathos ) . It has little place ( * * ) in an honest discussion .
Manipulating peoples emotions in this way to make them arrive at conclusions non-logically is one of the reasons that people dislike Scientology ( * * * ) .Consider for example the mocking statement " Smart , intellectually honest and Scientolist : you can be any two but not all three " .
It might sound like a great zinger , but it can be applied to any intelectual group you do n't like : Conservative , Liberal , Christian , Buddhist , you name it .
Just watch any comedian or " mock-umentary " director and you will quickly realize that anything can be mocked regardless of how good or bad it is.Finally , mocking runs a significant risk of alienating the very people you might be trying to reach .
If a person is pro-Scientology , then mocking is likely to make them hunker down and be disposed to blow-off the rest of your argument .
On the other hand if a person is neutral on the subject , then mocking makes your side look childish and mean spirited and thus the person is again more likely to blow-off the rest of your argument .
( * ) Even when mocking wraps a kernel of logic , the mocking is only a wrapper that adds no logic of its own ( * * ) I believe it is possible to sparingly use mocking in a constructive way when properly balanced by the other aspects of the rhetorical triangle , but that is a far cry from " It 's hard to go wrong with mocking " ( * * * ) Admittedly though , there are big differences in degree</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's hard to go wrong with mocking someoneI disagree.
Mocking is a rhetorical tool without(*) logical content.
It is primarily an emotional appeal (i.e.
pathos).  It has little place(**) in an honest discussion.
Manipulating peoples emotions in this way to make them arrive at conclusions non-logically is one of the reasons that people dislike Scientology(***).Consider for example the mocking statement "Smart, intellectually honest and Scientolist: you can be any two but not all three".
It might sound like a great zinger, but it can be applied to any intelectual group you don't like: Conservative, Liberal, Christian, Buddhist, you name it.
Just watch any comedian or "mock-umentary" director and you will quickly realize that anything can be mocked regardless of how good or bad it is.Finally, mocking runs a significant risk of alienating the very people you might be trying to reach.
If a person is pro-Scientology, then mocking is likely to make them hunker down and be disposed to blow-off the rest of your argument.
On the other hand if a person is neutral on the subject, then mocking makes your side look childish and mean spirited and thus the person is again more likely to blow-off the rest of your argument.
(*) Even when mocking wraps a kernel of logic, the mocking is only a wrapper that adds no logic of its own(**) I believe it is possible to sparingly use mocking in a constructive way when properly balanced by the other aspects of the rhetorical triangle, but that is a far cry from "It's hard to go wrong with mocking"(***) Admittedly though, there are big differences in degree
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135029</id>
	<title>Re:Fine by me</title>
	<author>seebs</author>
	<datestamp>1243534680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is actually a fairly well-defined formal boundary between "cult" in the technical sense and "religions".  Some cults are religious, some aren't.</p><p>But bluntly, none of the others can really compete on Scientology's home turf of criminal action.  I have griped at some length to Catholic friends about things the Catholic church does that I don't approve of.  They have not poisoned my pets, and I haven't died under mysterious circumstances that a Scientologist-linked police force decided were "natural causes".  (Such as a self-inflicted gunshot wound with no powder burns.)  So that's a pretty big difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is actually a fairly well-defined formal boundary between " cult " in the technical sense and " religions " .
Some cults are religious , some are n't.But bluntly , none of the others can really compete on Scientology 's home turf of criminal action .
I have griped at some length to Catholic friends about things the Catholic church does that I do n't approve of .
They have not poisoned my pets , and I have n't died under mysterious circumstances that a Scientologist-linked police force decided were " natural causes " .
( Such as a self-inflicted gunshot wound with no powder burns .
) So that 's a pretty big difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is actually a fairly well-defined formal boundary between "cult" in the technical sense and "religions".
Some cults are religious, some aren't.But bluntly, none of the others can really compete on Scientology's home turf of criminal action.
I have griped at some length to Catholic friends about things the Catholic church does that I don't approve of.
They have not poisoned my pets, and I haven't died under mysterious circumstances that a Scientologist-linked police force decided were "natural causes".
(Such as a self-inflicted gunshot wound with no powder burns.
)  So that's a pretty big difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134539</id>
	<title>Re:Fine by me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243530060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mod parent TROLL.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent TROLL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent TROLL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134287</id>
	<title>Re:how many more people have to die?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243527660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are oaks in Oklahoma, but not how you think there are...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are oaks in Oklahoma , but not how you think there are.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are oaks in Oklahoma, but not how you think there are...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137693</id>
	<title>Re:Fine by me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243606740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Court jester principle.  You need someone around to tell the truth, and it's generally more palatable if it's couched in humor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Court jester principle .
You need someone around to tell the truth , and it 's generally more palatable if it 's couched in humor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Court jester principle.
You need someone around to tell the truth, and it's generally more palatable if it's couched in humor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135037</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136153</id>
	<title>Re:Hypocritical</title>
	<author>Lars T.</author>
	<datestamp>1243591320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Not defending Scientology, but does Wikipedia not champion free speech?</p></div><p>Exactly - so why should they allow an orchestrated attack on free speech by COS? Free speech isn't about who yells the loudest.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not defending Scientology , but does Wikipedia not champion free speech ? Exactly - so why should they allow an orchestrated attack on free speech by COS ?
Free speech is n't about who yells the loudest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not defending Scientology, but does Wikipedia not champion free speech?Exactly - so why should they allow an orchestrated attack on free speech by COS?
Free speech isn't about who yells the loudest.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135423</id>
	<title>What about Xenu?</title>
	<author>Is0m0rph</author>
	<datestamp>1243539420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How do you keep him from editing?  Surely he can use whatever IP address he wants?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you keep him from editing ?
Surely he can use whatever IP address he wants ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you keep him from editing?
Surely he can use whatever IP address he wants?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133685</id>
	<title>Irony...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243523400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A Cult of wackjob's bans another Cult of wackjobs...  Very Interesting...</htmltext>
<tokenext>A Cult of wackjob 's bans another Cult of wackjobs... Very Interesting.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A Cult of wackjob's bans another Cult of wackjobs...  Very Interesting...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28174835</id>
	<title>distinction by degree</title>
	<author>epine</author>
	<datestamp>1243855320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've just never seen a good explanation of the difference of a cult and a religion that doesn't boil down purely to the difference in number of believers.</p></div><p>Is is so surprising that sometimes distinction is by degree?</p><p>The Catholic sacrament contains a mild neurotoxin.  The sacrament of the Peoples Temple Agricultural Project contained potassium cyanide.  I'm not finding it hard to make the cut.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've just never seen a good explanation of the difference of a cult and a religion that does n't boil down purely to the difference in number of believers.Is is so surprising that sometimes distinction is by degree ? The Catholic sacrament contains a mild neurotoxin .
The sacrament of the Peoples Temple Agricultural Project contained potassium cyanide .
I 'm not finding it hard to make the cut .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've just never seen a good explanation of the difference of a cult and a religion that doesn't boil down purely to the difference in number of believers.Is is so surprising that sometimes distinction is by degree?The Catholic sacrament contains a mild neurotoxin.
The sacrament of the Peoples Temple Agricultural Project contained potassium cyanide.
I'm not finding it hard to make the cut.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134225</id>
	<title>Re:Fine by me</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1243527180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The scale and profound history of criminal behavior of the cult throughout its history and among its top leadership. This is coupled with the cult's dangerous and historically criminal attacks against critics to turn mere "astroturfing" into an affirmation of their fraudulent and criminal behavior.</p><p>So, no, the Mormons don't do the same thing. Those differences are what make Scientology a cult: the steps are pretty well described by Steve Hassn, and easily reviewed at his Wikipedia site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven\_Hassan).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The scale and profound history of criminal behavior of the cult throughout its history and among its top leadership .
This is coupled with the cult 's dangerous and historically criminal attacks against critics to turn mere " astroturfing " into an affirmation of their fraudulent and criminal behavior.So , no , the Mormons do n't do the same thing .
Those differences are what make Scientology a cult : the steps are pretty well described by Steve Hassn , and easily reviewed at his Wikipedia site ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven \ _Hassan ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The scale and profound history of criminal behavior of the cult throughout its history and among its top leadership.
This is coupled with the cult's dangerous and historically criminal attacks against critics to turn mere "astroturfing" into an affirmation of their fraudulent and criminal behavior.So, no, the Mormons don't do the same thing.
Those differences are what make Scientology a cult: the steps are pretty well described by Steve Hassn, and easily reviewed at his Wikipedia site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven\_Hassan).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137011</id>
	<title>Re:Fine by me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243602420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've just never seen a good explanation of the difference of a cult and a religion that doesn't boil down purely to the difference in number of believers. I read the article in question and I'm still completely confused.



<i>Hassan distinguishes between what he terms as destructive cults and benign cults. A destructive cult, according to Hassan, has a "pyramid-shaped authoritarian regime with a person or group of people that have dictatorial control." and "uses deception in recruiting new members." In contrast, benign cults are, according to Hassan, "any group of people who have a set of beliefs and rituals that are non-mainstream."</i>

So benign cults are not a bad thing at all then? And "destructive" cult definition pretty much exactly matches Catholic church?</p></div><p>
Benign cults are, in my opinion as an atheist, usually no more harmful than other random religious beliefs.  The only problem with them is their fervor and the chance of leading to a destructive cult.  As for the catholic church, while there is dictatorial leadership in terms of specific rules (abortion, divorce, preventives), this influence is public and known before people join.  This would be different from a destructive cult, which tend to represent themselves as one thing and then gradually move members into something different.
</p><p>Eivind.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've just never seen a good explanation of the difference of a cult and a religion that does n't boil down purely to the difference in number of believers .
I read the article in question and I 'm still completely confused .
Hassan distinguishes between what he terms as destructive cults and benign cults .
A destructive cult , according to Hassan , has a " pyramid-shaped authoritarian regime with a person or group of people that have dictatorial control .
" and " uses deception in recruiting new members .
" In contrast , benign cults are , according to Hassan , " any group of people who have a set of beliefs and rituals that are non-mainstream .
" So benign cults are not a bad thing at all then ?
And " destructive " cult definition pretty much exactly matches Catholic church ?
Benign cults are , in my opinion as an atheist , usually no more harmful than other random religious beliefs .
The only problem with them is their fervor and the chance of leading to a destructive cult .
As for the catholic church , while there is dictatorial leadership in terms of specific rules ( abortion , divorce , preventives ) , this influence is public and known before people join .
This would be different from a destructive cult , which tend to represent themselves as one thing and then gradually move members into something different .
Eivind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've just never seen a good explanation of the difference of a cult and a religion that doesn't boil down purely to the difference in number of believers.
I read the article in question and I'm still completely confused.
Hassan distinguishes between what he terms as destructive cults and benign cults.
A destructive cult, according to Hassan, has a "pyramid-shaped authoritarian regime with a person or group of people that have dictatorial control.
" and "uses deception in recruiting new members.
" In contrast, benign cults are, according to Hassan, "any group of people who have a set of beliefs and rituals that are non-mainstream.
"

So benign cults are not a bad thing at all then?
And "destructive" cult definition pretty much exactly matches Catholic church?
Benign cults are, in my opinion as an atheist, usually no more harmful than other random religious beliefs.
The only problem with them is their fervor and the chance of leading to a destructive cult.
As for the catholic church, while there is dictatorial leadership in terms of specific rules (abortion, divorce, preventives), this influence is public and known before people join.
This would be different from a destructive cult, which tend to represent themselves as one thing and then gradually move members into something different.
Eivind.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135931</id>
	<title>The encyclopedia that anyone can edit - BULLSHIT</title>
	<author>d\_jedi</author>
	<datestamp>1243588440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That may once have been the case, but how it's far from it.<br>RIP wikipedia, we miss you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That may once have been the case , but how it 's far from it.RIP wikipedia , we miss you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That may once have been the case, but how it's far from it.RIP wikipedia, we miss you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136947</id>
	<title>Re:About Fucking Time</title>
	<author>Drakkenmensch</author>
	<datestamp>1243601760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When I ask him, "how can you trust an institution that is so legally violent? if it wanted to be judged by its merits, it shouldn't be litigating the hell out of everyone that stands in its way!", he responds "our opponents deserve litigation because they intend to suppress us". It is quite frustrating to have these conversations with him.</p></div><p>I have a personal rule where I end conversations with anyone who talks about any undefined capitalized "They" or "The Man". It has never failed me so far and saved me countless hours in wasted breath.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I ask him , " how can you trust an institution that is so legally violent ?
if it wanted to be judged by its merits , it should n't be litigating the hell out of everyone that stands in its way !
" , he responds " our opponents deserve litigation because they intend to suppress us " .
It is quite frustrating to have these conversations with him.I have a personal rule where I end conversations with anyone who talks about any undefined capitalized " They " or " The Man " .
It has never failed me so far and saved me countless hours in wasted breath .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I ask him, "how can you trust an institution that is so legally violent?
if it wanted to be judged by its merits, it shouldn't be litigating the hell out of everyone that stands in its way!
", he responds "our opponents deserve litigation because they intend to suppress us".
It is quite frustrating to have these conversations with him.I have a personal rule where I end conversations with anyone who talks about any undefined capitalized "They" or "The Man".
It has never failed me so far and saved me countless hours in wasted breath.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133695</id>
	<title>Tor?</title>
	<author>viyh</author>
	<datestamp>1243523520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This will only cause them to start using something like Tor or any other method of obscuring their IP. I don't see how an IP ban will be that effective. It only serves to make it much more difficult to prevent them from doing this in the future since the Wikipedia folks could at least know when it was them before due to the originating IP block. Now it will just be random IPs and much more difficult to keep a handle on. It's forcing them to be smarter. Just what we need, knowledgeable religious wingnuts who worship aliens.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This will only cause them to start using something like Tor or any other method of obscuring their IP .
I do n't see how an IP ban will be that effective .
It only serves to make it much more difficult to prevent them from doing this in the future since the Wikipedia folks could at least know when it was them before due to the originating IP block .
Now it will just be random IPs and much more difficult to keep a handle on .
It 's forcing them to be smarter .
Just what we need , knowledgeable religious wingnuts who worship aliens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will only cause them to start using something like Tor or any other method of obscuring their IP.
I don't see how an IP ban will be that effective.
It only serves to make it much more difficult to prevent them from doing this in the future since the Wikipedia folks could at least know when it was them before due to the originating IP block.
Now it will just be random IPs and much more difficult to keep a handle on.
It's forcing them to be smarter.
Just what we need, knowledgeable religious wingnuts who worship aliens.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134727</id>
	<title>Re:Fine by me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243532040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Scientology isn't a religion OR a cult, it's a criminal racket. Their "beliefs" may be "nutty", but you know that nobody in positions of power within the "Church" actually believe them. You'd be a pretty poor scammer if you believed your own lies!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Scientology is n't a religion OR a cult , it 's a criminal racket .
Their " beliefs " may be " nutty " , but you know that nobody in positions of power within the " Church " actually believe them .
You 'd be a pretty poor scammer if you believed your own lies !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scientology isn't a religion OR a cult, it's a criminal racket.
Their "beliefs" may be "nutty", but you know that nobody in positions of power within the "Church" actually believe them.
You'd be a pretty poor scammer if you believed your own lies!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137733</id>
	<title>Re:Fine by me</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1243606860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So go discuss it on the Wikipedia talk pages, not here. If you have reliable notable 3rd party sources to back up your claims, and a reliable source that LDS have also been widely referred to as a cult, then that should be fine.</p><p>Yes, I sometimes see inconsistency on different pages too. When you have large numbers of articles written by large numbers of people, on topics that are traditionally viewed differently, we're going to see this effect (just as we see it in all media and books).</p><p><i>I am afraid to make them though cause I might get banned from the site.</i></p><p>No, you won't. Discussion on talk pages won't ever lead to bans anyway, and bans are for people who vandalise pages, which adding sourced information certainly does not fall under.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So go discuss it on the Wikipedia talk pages , not here .
If you have reliable notable 3rd party sources to back up your claims , and a reliable source that LDS have also been widely referred to as a cult , then that should be fine.Yes , I sometimes see inconsistency on different pages too .
When you have large numbers of articles written by large numbers of people , on topics that are traditionally viewed differently , we 're going to see this effect ( just as we see it in all media and books ) .I am afraid to make them though cause I might get banned from the site.No , you wo n't .
Discussion on talk pages wo n't ever lead to bans anyway , and bans are for people who vandalise pages , which adding sourced information certainly does not fall under .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So go discuss it on the Wikipedia talk pages, not here.
If you have reliable notable 3rd party sources to back up your claims, and a reliable source that LDS have also been widely referred to as a cult, then that should be fine.Yes, I sometimes see inconsistency on different pages too.
When you have large numbers of articles written by large numbers of people, on topics that are traditionally viewed differently, we're going to see this effect (just as we see it in all media and books).I am afraid to make them though cause I might get banned from the site.No, you won't.
Discussion on talk pages won't ever lead to bans anyway, and bans are for people who vandalise pages, which adding sourced information certainly does not fall under.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136933</id>
	<title>Re:Fine by me</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1243601640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"[a destructive cult] uses deception in recruiting new members." <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... "destructive" cult definition pretty much exactly matches Catholic church?</p></div><p>Only if you think the Catholic priests don't believe in God.  You might think they're wrong, but that doesn't mean they're being deceptive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" [ a destructive cult ] uses deception in recruiting new members .
" ... " destructive " cult definition pretty much exactly matches Catholic church ? Only if you think the Catholic priests do n't believe in God .
You might think they 're wrong , but that does n't mean they 're being deceptive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"[a destructive cult] uses deception in recruiting new members.
"  ... "destructive" cult definition pretty much exactly matches Catholic church?Only if you think the Catholic priests don't believe in God.
You might think they're wrong, but that doesn't mean they're being deceptive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28147259</id>
	<title>Re:About Fucking Time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243620420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>List of stuff that is illegal in Germany:</p><p>1) Nazism.<br>2) Scientology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>List of stuff that is illegal in Germany : 1 ) Nazism.2 ) Scientology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>List of stuff that is illegal in Germany:1) Nazism.2) Scientology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133507</id>
	<title>The Irony</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243522140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this mean that Scientology now has to do their edits <i>Anonymously</i>?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean that Scientology now has to do their edits Anonymously ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean that Scientology now has to do their edits Anonymously?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134883</id>
	<title>Re:Fine by me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243533360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's all semantics and hair-splitting.</p><p>To those of us who are <i>rational</i> people in the true sense of the word, one belief in a sky god is pretty much the same as any other.</p><p>"Religion" is just a weasel-word for a cult writ large, the agenda is the same - control of followers, twist focus of people away from family and onto weird rituals and provide free labour and possible sexual favours  for the shaman/priest/elder/mullah.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all semantics and hair-splitting.To those of us who are rational people in the true sense of the word , one belief in a sky god is pretty much the same as any other .
" Religion " is just a weasel-word for a cult writ large , the agenda is the same - control of followers , twist focus of people away from family and onto weird rituals and provide free labour and possible sexual favours for the shaman/priest/elder/mullah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all semantics and hair-splitting.To those of us who are rational people in the true sense of the word, one belief in a sky god is pretty much the same as any other.
"Religion" is just a weasel-word for a cult writ large, the agenda is the same - control of followers, twist focus of people away from family and onto weird rituals and provide free labour and possible sexual favours  for the shaman/priest/elder/mullah.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133785</id>
	<title>Re:Tor?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243524360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PROXY, it covers the problem of open proxies like TOR.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia : PROXY , it covers the problem of open proxies like TOR .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PROXY, it covers the problem of open proxies like TOR.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133695</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134791</id>
	<title>Re:What Science?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243532520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right, except you're comparing science and Islam.</p><p>Islam is about as noble as every over religion out there.  In other words, Islam's not fucking noble at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , except you 're comparing science and Islam.Islam is about as noble as every over religion out there .
In other words , Islam 's not fucking noble at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, except you're comparing science and Islam.Islam is about as noble as every over religion out there.
In other words, Islam's not fucking noble at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137973</id>
	<title>Idiots, fucking idiots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243608060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To certain slashdot posters: if you think you can define religion in terms other than arbitrary recognition by the state then you are an idiot, I don't even need to read your definition to know that it is wrong.<br>Oh and as a bonus, if you think there is any such thing as an unbiased article, news report or any other form of the spoken word then you are a fucking idiot.<br>I should perhaps cut you some slack if you have not lived for many revolutions of the earth round the sun, because the young are always idiots - sometimes wonderful idiots, but idiots just the same. Argue against this if you will but if you are wise enough you will come to realize that we are creatures of self-interest to the very last blood vessel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To certain slashdot posters : if you think you can define religion in terms other than arbitrary recognition by the state then you are an idiot , I do n't even need to read your definition to know that it is wrong.Oh and as a bonus , if you think there is any such thing as an unbiased article , news report or any other form of the spoken word then you are a fucking idiot.I should perhaps cut you some slack if you have not lived for many revolutions of the earth round the sun , because the young are always idiots - sometimes wonderful idiots , but idiots just the same .
Argue against this if you will but if you are wise enough you will come to realize that we are creatures of self-interest to the very last blood vessel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To certain slashdot posters: if you think you can define religion in terms other than arbitrary recognition by the state then you are an idiot, I don't even need to read your definition to know that it is wrong.Oh and as a bonus, if you think there is any such thing as an unbiased article, news report or any other form of the spoken word then you are a fucking idiot.I should perhaps cut you some slack if you have not lived for many revolutions of the earth round the sun, because the young are always idiots - sometimes wonderful idiots, but idiots just the same.
Argue against this if you will but if you are wise enough you will come to realize that we are creatures of self-interest to the very last blood vessel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134259</id>
	<title>Re:how long before they sue</title>
	<author>NuGeo</author>
	<datestamp>1243527480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if they don't sue, it's something the church can throw onto the "we're being suppressed!" pile of propaganda.</p><p>I think this was an unwise move on Wikipedia's part.  It won't solve anything.  All it will do is add fuel to the fire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if they do n't sue , it 's something the church can throw onto the " we 're being suppressed !
" pile of propaganda.I think this was an unwise move on Wikipedia 's part .
It wo n't solve anything .
All it will do is add fuel to the fire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if they don't sue, it's something the church can throw onto the "we're being suppressed!
" pile of propaganda.I think this was an unwise move on Wikipedia's part.
It won't solve anything.
All it will do is add fuel to the fire.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136431</id>
	<title>Here are edits from scientology</title>
	<author>oliderid</author>
	<datestamp>1243595340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well for those like wondering what scientology has edited (lwhy it has led to such massive ban). I finally found those modifications through wikiscanner.
<a href="http://katrina.cs.caltech.edu/erenrich\_rnd345/scanner\_final/" title="caltech.edu">http://katrina.cs.caltech.edu/erenrich\_rnd345/scanner\_final/</a> [caltech.edu]

The result:
<a href="http://katrina.cs.caltech.edu/erenrich\_rnd345/scanner\_final/company\_selection.php?company\_name=scientology" title="caltech.edu">http://katrina.cs.caltech.edu/erenrich\_rnd345/scanner\_final/company\_selection.php?company\_name=scientology</a> [caltech.edu]
You see 182 editors (I don't know how they found them)

You can see all their modifications .</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well for those like wondering what scientology has edited ( lwhy it has led to such massive ban ) .
I finally found those modifications through wikiscanner .
http : //katrina.cs.caltech.edu/erenrich \ _rnd345/scanner \ _final/ [ caltech.edu ] The result : http : //katrina.cs.caltech.edu/erenrich \ _rnd345/scanner \ _final/company \ _selection.php ? company \ _name = scientology [ caltech.edu ] You see 182 editors ( I do n't know how they found them ) You can see all their modifications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well for those like wondering what scientology has edited (lwhy it has led to such massive ban).
I finally found those modifications through wikiscanner.
http://katrina.cs.caltech.edu/erenrich\_rnd345/scanner\_final/ [caltech.edu]

The result:
http://katrina.cs.caltech.edu/erenrich\_rnd345/scanner\_final/company\_selection.php?company\_name=scientology [caltech.edu]
You see 182 editors (I don't know how they found them)

You can see all their modifications .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133909</id>
	<title>Re:how many more people have to die?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243525140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>no criminal organization should be allowed to hide under the thin veil of religion</p></div><p>oh! you mean ISLAM?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>no criminal organization should be allowed to hide under the thin veil of religionoh !
you mean ISLAM ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no criminal organization should be allowed to hide under the thin veil of religionoh!
you mean ISLAM?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133817</id>
	<title>disturbing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243524540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137983</id>
	<title>Re:Fine by me</title>
	<author>Maladius</author>
	<datestamp>1243608120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>LOL.  I just tried viewing this article at work and it came up blocked.  "This Websense category is filtered: Tasteless."</htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL .
I just tried viewing this article at work and it came up blocked .
" This Websense category is filtered : Tasteless .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL.
I just tried viewing this article at work and it came up blocked.
"This Websense category is filtered: Tasteless.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135037</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135551</id>
	<title>Re:Hypocritical</title>
	<author>Nathrael</author>
	<datestamp>1243627440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As I've said above already, free speech does not apply here. Free speech may give you the right to spread your lies in your own conversations or media, but *not* in media owned by somebody else. When you want to edit Wikipedia, stay within the rules.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As I 've said above already , free speech does not apply here .
Free speech may give you the right to spread your lies in your own conversations or media , but * not * in media owned by somebody else .
When you want to edit Wikipedia , stay within the rules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I've said above already, free speech does not apply here.
Free speech may give you the right to spread your lies in your own conversations or media, but *not* in media owned by somebody else.
When you want to edit Wikipedia, stay within the rules.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134575</id>
	<title>Re:IP addresses don't identify users</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243530420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It looks like someone is still using IPv4.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It looks like someone is still using IPv4 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It looks like someone is still using IPv4.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134657</id>
	<title>Re:IP addresses don't identify users</title>
	<author>sasha328</author>
	<datestamp>1243531260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They sure don't identify users, but they sure identify locations!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They sure do n't identify users , but they sure identify locations !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They sure don't identify users, but they sure identify locations!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133659</id>
	<title>how many more people have to die?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243523220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no criminal organization should be allowed to hide under the thin veil of religion</p><p>if they offer therapy to people for a fee they need to adhere to state guidelines and laws concerning licencing.</p><p>"1  Scientology has attempted to operate its Narconon  drug<br>"therapy" program outside of required State licensing or<br>inspection on a leased  "independently sovereign" Indian<br>reservation outside of Newkirk Oaklahoma. Just this month, after<br>extensive and costly litigation the state goverment of Oaklahoma<br>ordered this facility closed."</p><p><a href="http://skull.piratehaven.org/~atman/factnet/scnbond2.txt" title="piratehaven.org" rel="nofollow">http://skull.piratehaven.org/~atman/factnet/scnbond2.txt</a> [piratehaven.org]</p><p>Its amazing how many people have ended up 6-feet under after becoming a member of scientology:</p><p><a href="http://www.badcult.info/watd/" title="badcult.info" rel="nofollow">http://www.badcult.info/watd/</a> [badcult.info]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no criminal organization should be allowed to hide under the thin veil of religionif they offer therapy to people for a fee they need to adhere to state guidelines and laws concerning licencing .
" 1 Scientology has attempted to operate its Narconon drug " therapy " program outside of required State licensing orinspection on a leased " independently sovereign " Indianreservation outside of Newkirk Oaklahoma .
Just this month , afterextensive and costly litigation the state goverment of Oaklahomaordered this facility closed .
" http : //skull.piratehaven.org/ ~ atman/factnet/scnbond2.txt [ piratehaven.org ] Its amazing how many people have ended up 6-feet under after becoming a member of scientology : http : //www.badcult.info/watd/ [ badcult.info ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no criminal organization should be allowed to hide under the thin veil of religionif they offer therapy to people for a fee they need to adhere to state guidelines and laws concerning licencing.
"1  Scientology has attempted to operate its Narconon  drug"therapy" program outside of required State licensing orinspection on a leased  "independently sovereign" Indianreservation outside of Newkirk Oaklahoma.
Just this month, afterextensive and costly litigation the state goverment of Oaklahomaordered this facility closed.
"http://skull.piratehaven.org/~atman/factnet/scnbond2.txt [piratehaven.org]Its amazing how many people have ended up 6-feet under after becoming a member of scientology:http://www.badcult.info/watd/ [badcult.info]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133647</id>
	<title>Yay</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243523100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Score another one for "acceptable targets".  How long before Christianity gets to be an acceptable target and we can ban Christians from editing Wikipedia?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Score another one for " acceptable targets " .
How long before Christianity gets to be an acceptable target and we can ban Christians from editing Wikipedia ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Score another one for "acceptable targets".
How long before Christianity gets to be an acceptable target and we can ban Christians from editing Wikipedia?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133555</id>
	<title>Fine by me</title>
	<author>zappa86</author>
	<datestamp>1243522440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It still is the "free encyclopedia anyone can edit," nothing has changed. You miss the point of "free" and "open" it doesnt mean that everything one puts will stay there. People make mistakes, people distort the truth, and people Lie. Others, have to correct these errors. If one person "cries wolf" a lot, you're simply not going to listen to them. This is all that it is. If someone had a history of not telling the truth, why would you trust them?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It still is the " free encyclopedia anyone can edit , " nothing has changed .
You miss the point of " free " and " open " it doesnt mean that everything one puts will stay there .
People make mistakes , people distort the truth , and people Lie .
Others , have to correct these errors .
If one person " cries wolf " a lot , you 're simply not going to listen to them .
This is all that it is .
If someone had a history of not telling the truth , why would you trust them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It still is the "free encyclopedia anyone can edit," nothing has changed.
You miss the point of "free" and "open" it doesnt mean that everything one puts will stay there.
People make mistakes, people distort the truth, and people Lie.
Others, have to correct these errors.
If one person "cries wolf" a lot, you're simply not going to listen to them.
This is all that it is.
If someone had a history of not telling the truth, why would you trust them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133975</id>
	<title>Re:About Fucking Time</title>
	<author>Austerity Empowers</author>
	<datestamp>1243525500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The part about how they treat the outside is definitely evil, although primarily evil insofar as they have a lot of money and intend on doing harm.</p><p>The rest doesn't seem at all like a double standard or inherently malevolent. We're all free to get along and settle our differences outside of court. The courts inherently exist only for the cases when no agreement can be reached, but action is required. Definitely it's a huge drain on society to have people dragging one another in there for every trivial piece of bullshit infighting that may occur. Get along, as much as possible. </p><p>I don't especially want to take my sister to court because she didn't pay me that $100 back that I loaned her in high school. Nor is there a double standard if I should take my phone company to court if they refuse to reimburse me for making a mistake on my bill. I might be able to agree with my sister, or decide that it's not worth the family hostility, but the phone company is (at best) nobody to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The part about how they treat the outside is definitely evil , although primarily evil insofar as they have a lot of money and intend on doing harm.The rest does n't seem at all like a double standard or inherently malevolent .
We 're all free to get along and settle our differences outside of court .
The courts inherently exist only for the cases when no agreement can be reached , but action is required .
Definitely it 's a huge drain on society to have people dragging one another in there for every trivial piece of bullshit infighting that may occur .
Get along , as much as possible .
I do n't especially want to take my sister to court because she did n't pay me that $ 100 back that I loaned her in high school .
Nor is there a double standard if I should take my phone company to court if they refuse to reimburse me for making a mistake on my bill .
I might be able to agree with my sister , or decide that it 's not worth the family hostility , but the phone company is ( at best ) nobody to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The part about how they treat the outside is definitely evil, although primarily evil insofar as they have a lot of money and intend on doing harm.The rest doesn't seem at all like a double standard or inherently malevolent.
We're all free to get along and settle our differences outside of court.
The courts inherently exist only for the cases when no agreement can be reached, but action is required.
Definitely it's a huge drain on society to have people dragging one another in there for every trivial piece of bullshit infighting that may occur.
Get along, as much as possible.
I don't especially want to take my sister to court because she didn't pay me that $100 back that I loaned her in high school.
Nor is there a double standard if I should take my phone company to court if they refuse to reimburse me for making a mistake on my bill.
I might be able to agree with my sister, or decide that it's not worth the family hostility, but the phone company is (at best) nobody to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135985</id>
	<title>Anonymous editors can't edit protected pages</title>
	<author>bebemochi</author>
	<datestamp>1243589220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And the Scientology page is protected (I just checked with my well-established Wikipedia account):<blockquote><div><p>Editing Scientology<br>
Note: This page has been semi-protected so that only established users can edit it.</p></div></blockquote><p>
They'll have to be a bit more devious.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And the Scientology page is protected ( I just checked with my well-established Wikipedia account ) : Editing Scientology Note : This page has been semi-protected so that only established users can edit it .
They 'll have to be a bit more devious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the Scientology page is protected (I just checked with my well-established Wikipedia account):Editing Scientology
Note: This page has been semi-protected so that only established users can edit it.
They'll have to be a bit more devious.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133961</id>
	<title>Re:freedom of expression</title>
	<author>Thansal</author>
	<datestamp>1243525440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for all people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." -- Noam Chomsky</i></p><p>They are free to express themselves.  Just not over here on this privately run website, that is supposed to host impartial articles on a wide range of subjects, because they refuse to be impartial in their expressions there.  They are still perfectly free to express themselves though (this being the internet and all, they can post their drivel just about anywhere).</p><p>Random side note:<br>Since they are all supposed to be reincarnations of super beings (or something), why is it that they haven't cured cancer for us yet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If we do n't believe in freedom of expression for all people we despise , we do n't believe in it at all .
" -- Noam ChomskyThey are free to express themselves .
Just not over here on this privately run website , that is supposed to host impartial articles on a wide range of subjects , because they refuse to be impartial in their expressions there .
They are still perfectly free to express themselves though ( this being the internet and all , they can post their drivel just about anywhere ) .Random side note : Since they are all supposed to be reincarnations of super beings ( or something ) , why is it that they have n't cured cancer for us yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for all people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.
" -- Noam ChomskyThey are free to express themselves.
Just not over here on this privately run website, that is supposed to host impartial articles on a wide range of subjects, because they refuse to be impartial in their expressions there.
They are still perfectly free to express themselves though (this being the internet and all, they can post their drivel just about anywhere).Random side note:Since they are all supposed to be reincarnations of super beings (or something), why is it that they haven't cured cancer for us yet?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133579</id>
	<title>Why!?</title>
	<author>Nrbelex</author>
	<datestamp>1243522560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmmm... but according to my <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology" title="wikipedia.org">research</a> [wikipedia.org], it's just a harmless religion based on love and understanding of others. Why would Wikipedia ban such a group?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm... but according to my research [ wikipedia.org ] , it 's just a harmless religion based on love and understanding of others .
Why would Wikipedia ban such a group ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm... but according to my research [wikipedia.org], it's just a harmless religion based on love and understanding of others.
Why would Wikipedia ban such a group?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134767</id>
	<title>There's an error in the summary...</title>
	<author>euxneks</author>
	<datestamp>1243532400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><em>[...] such a high-profile organization [...] </em>
<br> <br>
Anyone else see something wrong with that statement? I mean, c'mon, "<i>High profile</i>"... What the fuck guys?  This is a fucking cult here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ ... ] such a high-profile organization [ ... ] Anyone else see something wrong with that statement ?
I mean , c'mon , " High profile " ... What the fuck guys ?
This is a fucking cult here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[...] such a high-profile organization [...] 
 
Anyone else see something wrong with that statement?
I mean, c'mon, "High profile"... What the fuck guys?
This is a fucking cult here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134937</id>
	<title>Re:About Fucking Time</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1243533780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Even more interestingly is that inter-church issues are not taken to court, in fact, to take an internal quarrel to court is grounds from a church ban. They have their own "ethics committees" that see such cases, but they generally follow their own laws and not those of the locale they're in.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's standard practice these days; most contracts consumers make with companies include a clause that prevents them from taking legal matters to court, instead forcing use of an arbitrator.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even more interestingly is that inter-church issues are not taken to court , in fact , to take an internal quarrel to court is grounds from a church ban .
They have their own " ethics committees " that see such cases , but they generally follow their own laws and not those of the locale they 're in.That 's standard practice these days ; most contracts consumers make with companies include a clause that prevents them from taking legal matters to court , instead forcing use of an arbitrator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even more interestingly is that inter-church issues are not taken to court, in fact, to take an internal quarrel to court is grounds from a church ban.
They have their own "ethics committees" that see such cases, but they generally follow their own laws and not those of the locale they're in.That's standard practice these days; most contracts consumers make with companies include a clause that prevents them from taking legal matters to court, instead forcing use of an arbitrator.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134763</id>
	<title>Re:Fine by me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243532400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly. Why does society demand I tolerate xtianity but not scientology? I wish all this Scientology hate was directly at televangelists and pedophile priests. Perhaps something could be done about them. Instead, the cool kids have declared war on scientology while muslim extemists blow up the world and American xtians do their best to destroy rational thinking and secularism.  As bad as the CoS is, its crimes arent a drop in the bucket compared to the real villains out there.  Perhaps the cool kids are too afraid to question their religious parents, friends, and communities or subscribe to equally false beliefs themselves.</p><p>If theres anything wrong with sheep-like thinking its self-righteous sheep-like thinking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
Why does society demand I tolerate xtianity but not scientology ?
I wish all this Scientology hate was directly at televangelists and pedophile priests .
Perhaps something could be done about them .
Instead , the cool kids have declared war on scientology while muslim extemists blow up the world and American xtians do their best to destroy rational thinking and secularism .
As bad as the CoS is , its crimes arent a drop in the bucket compared to the real villains out there .
Perhaps the cool kids are too afraid to question their religious parents , friends , and communities or subscribe to equally false beliefs themselves.If theres anything wrong with sheep-like thinking its self-righteous sheep-like thinking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
Why does society demand I tolerate xtianity but not scientology?
I wish all this Scientology hate was directly at televangelists and pedophile priests.
Perhaps something could be done about them.
Instead, the cool kids have declared war on scientology while muslim extemists blow up the world and American xtians do their best to destroy rational thinking and secularism.
As bad as the CoS is, its crimes arent a drop in the bucket compared to the real villains out there.
Perhaps the cool kids are too afraid to question their religious parents, friends, and communities or subscribe to equally false beliefs themselves.If theres anything wrong with sheep-like thinking its self-righteous sheep-like thinking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133731</id>
	<title>Damn, I hope...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243523880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that they're ready for the wrath of Tom Cruise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that they 're ready for the wrath of Tom Cruise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that they're ready for the wrath of Tom Cruise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134071</id>
	<title>Re:About Fucking Time</title>
	<author>iluvcapra</author>
	<datestamp>1243526160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"our opponents deserve litigation because they intend to suppress us"</p></div></blockquote><p>I know it's probably redundant and obvious to point this out, but a lawyer can be disbarred for bringing a frivolous suit to court ("frivolous" as defined by Earth-man US law), particularly if the intent is to threaten or silence someone, or to use the court system to "brush back" a critic or retaliate against a religious schismatic, which seems to be essentially what you're describing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" our opponents deserve litigation because they intend to suppress us " I know it 's probably redundant and obvious to point this out , but a lawyer can be disbarred for bringing a frivolous suit to court ( " frivolous " as defined by Earth-man US law ) , particularly if the intent is to threaten or silence someone , or to use the court system to " brush back " a critic or retaliate against a religious schismatic , which seems to be essentially what you 're describing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"our opponents deserve litigation because they intend to suppress us"I know it's probably redundant and obvious to point this out, but a lawyer can be disbarred for bringing a frivolous suit to court ("frivolous" as defined by Earth-man US law), particularly if the intent is to threaten or silence someone, or to use the court system to "brush back" a critic or retaliate against a religious schismatic, which seems to be essentially what you're describing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133859</id>
	<title>What Science?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243524780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Scientology is to science what Al Qaeda is to Islam, total fucktards having hijacked a noble precept.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scientology is to science what Al Qaeda is to Islam , total fucktards having hijacked a noble precept .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scientology is to science what Al Qaeda is to Islam, total fucktards having hijacked a noble precept.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28138269</id>
	<title>that's a common tweak nowadays</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1243609260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>fark does that, a lot of newspaper sites do that</p><p>it is common knowledge now, this "exile to the echo chamber", and anyone worth their salt knows to login from another ip/ identity and check to see their comment has actually posted</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fark does that , a lot of newspaper sites do thatit is common knowledge now , this " exile to the echo chamber " , and anyone worth their salt knows to login from another ip/ identity and check to see their comment has actually posted</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fark does that, a lot of newspaper sites do thatit is common knowledge now, this "exile to the echo chamber", and anyone worth their salt knows to login from another ip/ identity and check to see their comment has actually posted</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134021</id>
	<title>Re:About Fucking Time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243525800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>2. Jimbo should watch his back; Scientology *DOES NOT* play nice when it doesn't get what it wants.</i></p><p>Simple solution to this. Any religion that says you can ignore the law may do so, but must be subject to it's own proclamations. It seems to me that if their own policies were applied to them, they wouldn't have a right to due process, nor would their "enemies" be bound by the rule of law. Good luck defending yourselves and practicing your religion without the law.</p><p>I almost never post anonymously but I need a bunch of religious zealot nutjobs with no moral compass harassing me like I need a terminal disease.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2 .
Jimbo should watch his back ; Scientology * DOES NOT * play nice when it does n't get what it wants.Simple solution to this .
Any religion that says you can ignore the law may do so , but must be subject to it 's own proclamations .
It seems to me that if their own policies were applied to them , they would n't have a right to due process , nor would their " enemies " be bound by the rule of law .
Good luck defending yourselves and practicing your religion without the law.I almost never post anonymously but I need a bunch of religious zealot nutjobs with no moral compass harassing me like I need a terminal disease .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2.
Jimbo should watch his back; Scientology *DOES NOT* play nice when it doesn't get what it wants.Simple solution to this.
Any religion that says you can ignore the law may do so, but must be subject to it's own proclamations.
It seems to me that if their own policies were applied to them, they wouldn't have a right to due process, nor would their "enemies" be bound by the rule of law.
Good luck defending yourselves and practicing your religion without the law.I almost never post anonymously but I need a bunch of religious zealot nutjobs with no moral compass harassing me like I need a terminal disease.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137811</id>
	<title>Can /. ban their ads?</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1243607220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I must admit that I don't know how ads in such large size sites are administrated but it really bugs me that Scientology does excessive advertising on Slashdot, especially front page.</p><p>It can be also the scientific terms they picked to trigger ads or plain "lets do propaganda to these nerds".</p><p>Does<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. (or the parent in fact) have right to reject certain advertisements? It has reached a point that I saw couple of people accused<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. to be sponsored by them. Ads of any religion (or anti-religion) in a technical site doesn't really make sense to me at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I must admit that I do n't know how ads in such large size sites are administrated but it really bugs me that Scientology does excessive advertising on Slashdot , especially front page.It can be also the scientific terms they picked to trigger ads or plain " lets do propaganda to these nerds " .Does / .
( or the parent in fact ) have right to reject certain advertisements ?
It has reached a point that I saw couple of people accused / .
to be sponsored by them .
Ads of any religion ( or anti-religion ) in a technical site does n't really make sense to me at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I must admit that I don't know how ads in such large size sites are administrated but it really bugs me that Scientology does excessive advertising on Slashdot, especially front page.It can be also the scientific terms they picked to trigger ads or plain "lets do propaganda to these nerds".Does /.
(or the parent in fact) have right to reject certain advertisements?
It has reached a point that I saw couple of people accused /.
to be sponsored by them.
Ads of any religion (or anti-religion) in a technical site doesn't really make sense to me at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133547</id>
	<title>Allow me to be the FIRST to say....</title>
	<author>davidsyes</author>
	<datestamp>1243522380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... "This is HELLACIOUSLY wicked...."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... " This is HELLACIOUSLY wicked.... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... "This is HELLACIOUSLY wicked...."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137519</id>
	<title>Re:freedom of expression</title>
	<author>rbanffy</author>
	<datestamp>1243605660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with this is the confusion between expression and facts. Wikipedia should restrict itself to information that can be verified as true. Freedom of expression does not apply there - it's an encyclopedia, not a message board.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with this is the confusion between expression and facts .
Wikipedia should restrict itself to information that can be verified as true .
Freedom of expression does not apply there - it 's an encyclopedia , not a message board .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with this is the confusion between expression and facts.
Wikipedia should restrict itself to information that can be verified as true.
Freedom of expression does not apply there - it's an encyclopedia, not a message board.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28144957</id>
	<title>so anyone have any idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243597200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why my blackberry smartphone browser won't load this page 502 error. I use slashdot all the time and this page has been the first one ever to not work. Also won't load with viigo either</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why my blackberry smartphone browser wo n't load this page 502 error .
I use slashdot all the time and this page has been the first one ever to not work .
Also wo n't load with viigo either</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why my blackberry smartphone browser won't load this page 502 error.
I use slashdot all the time and this page has been the first one ever to not work.
Also won't load with viigo either</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134417</id>
	<title>It's about time!</title>
	<author>negatonium</author>
	<datestamp>1243528680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can I get an "Amen"!
Grab those cans and sing "Hallelujah"!

The lords [of the internet] work in mysterious ways!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can I get an " Amen " !
Grab those cans and sing " Hallelujah " !
The lords [ of the internet ] work in mysterious ways !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can I get an "Amen"!
Grab those cans and sing "Hallelujah"!
The lords [of the internet] work in mysterious ways!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136763</id>
	<title>Re:I hope they ban the Boy Scouts of America next</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243599660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could you provide your NYT links and, if possible, links to your revisions in the WP article histories?  Or just the titles of the articles you edited?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could you provide your NYT links and , if possible , links to your revisions in the WP article histories ?
Or just the titles of the articles you edited ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could you provide your NYT links and, if possible, links to your revisions in the WP article histories?
Or just the titles of the articles you edited?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133979</id>
	<title>Re:freedom of expression</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243525500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for all people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." -- Noam Chomsky</i>
<br> <br>
I don't think Chomsky was suggesting we allow vandals to "freely expressing" themselves with spray cans, simarly we should not allow CO$ to vandalise WP with astroturf.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" If we do n't believe in freedom of expression for all people we despise , we do n't believe in it at all .
" -- Noam Chomsky I do n't think Chomsky was suggesting we allow vandals to " freely expressing " themselves with spray cans , simarly we should not allow CO $ to vandalise WP with astroturf .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for all people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.
" -- Noam Chomsky
 
I don't think Chomsky was suggesting we allow vandals to "freely expressing" themselves with spray cans, simarly we should not allow CO$ to vandalise WP with astroturf.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133643</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136913
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28143339
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28147641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28145195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28147259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28142825
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28146593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28138269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133821
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28174835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28138929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28140113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28150993
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28144143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136153
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28142949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137693
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136181
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28140113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28148383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28138445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28145305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28141019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28142281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135623
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137655
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28141047
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134965
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28138251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28143721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134631
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136009
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28138641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136135
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136933
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0114236_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0114236.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28145305
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133829
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134071
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133975
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28143721
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136913
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133981
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28145195
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134775
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134937
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136947
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28147259
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133911
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0114236.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133659
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133909
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28144143
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133837
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134287
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0114236.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137655
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0114236.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134481
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134751
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134955
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133821
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136141
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135623
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0114236.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136153
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0114236.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134767
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135519
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0114236.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133579
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0114236.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133547
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0114236.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133699
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0114236.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133643
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28138445
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133961
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134531
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136009
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28141019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137519
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0114236.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133569
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0114236.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134629
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0114236.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133529
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0114236.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134631
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0114236.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28142281
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136181
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28142825
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134657
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28142949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134575
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0114236.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133555
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28146593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134197
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137837
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133931
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134505
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134225
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134883
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134485
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134527
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135409
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137011
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28174835
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136933
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137855
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136797
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137733
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134539
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134189
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134965
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136407
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134861
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136487
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137775
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137867
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134763
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134727
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134667
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135029
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135063
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136067
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137057
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134641
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28140113
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28148383
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28150993
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134219
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135037
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137693
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28141047
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137983
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134815
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0114236.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28138641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28138929
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137171
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0114236.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135985
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0114236.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28138269
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0114236.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133697
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0114236.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133645
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0114236.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133507
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0114236.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133859
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28136135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28138251
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28135087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28143339
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0114236.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28137005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28147641
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0114236.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134217
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0114236.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28133737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0114236.28134259
</commentlist>
</conversation>
