<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_16_2137203</id>
	<title>Statistical Suspicions In Iran's Election</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1245151440000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.washington.edu/~hoytak/" rel="nofollow">hoytak</a> writes <i>"An expert in electoral fraud, professor <a href="http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wmebane/">Walter Melbane</a>, has released a <a href="http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wmebane/note14jun2009.pdf">detailed analysis</a> (PDF) of available data in Iran's controversial election (<a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the\_daily\_dish/2009/06/more-statistical-analysis.html">summary here</a>). While he did not find significant indications of fraud, he does note that all the deviations from the predicted model are in Ahmadinejad's favor: 'In general, combining the 2005 and 2009 data conveys the impression that a substantial core of the 2009 results reflected natural political process... [These] stand in contrast to the unusual pattern in which all of the notable discrepancies between the support Ahmadinejad actually received and the support the model predicts are always negative. This pattern needs to be explained before one can have confidence that natural election processes were not supplemented with artificial manipulations.'"</i> In related news, <a href="http://blog.phlebasconsidered.net/" rel="nofollow">EsonLinji</a> notes reports in the <a href="http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/archives/171381.asp?from=blog\_last3">Seattle PI</a> and <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/twitter/5552733/Twitter-maintained-service-during-Iranian-elections-after-US-State-Dept-request.html">other</a> <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hVfx9nWcGKwoXsxpAQZFJhNwGVsAD98RVV7G0">sources</a> that the US State Department has asked Twitter to delay system maintenance to prevent cutting off Iranians who have been relying on the service during the post-election crisis. And if you would like to help ease the communication crunch, reader RCulpepper tips a blog post detailing <a href="http://blog.austinheap.com/2009/06/15/how-to-setup-a-proxy-for-iran-citizens/">how to set up a proxy server</a> for users with Iranian IP addresses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>hoytak writes " An expert in electoral fraud , professor Walter Melbane , has released a detailed analysis ( PDF ) of available data in Iran 's controversial election ( summary here ) .
While he did not find significant indications of fraud , he does note that all the deviations from the predicted model are in Ahmadinejad 's favor : 'In general , combining the 2005 and 2009 data conveys the impression that a substantial core of the 2009 results reflected natural political process... [ These ] stand in contrast to the unusual pattern in which all of the notable discrepancies between the support Ahmadinejad actually received and the support the model predicts are always negative .
This pattern needs to be explained before one can have confidence that natural election processes were not supplemented with artificial manipulations .
' " In related news , EsonLinji notes reports in the Seattle PI and other sources that the US State Department has asked Twitter to delay system maintenance to prevent cutting off Iranians who have been relying on the service during the post-election crisis .
And if you would like to help ease the communication crunch , reader RCulpepper tips a blog post detailing how to set up a proxy server for users with Iranian IP addresses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hoytak writes "An expert in electoral fraud, professor Walter Melbane, has released a detailed analysis (PDF) of available data in Iran's controversial election (summary here).
While he did not find significant indications of fraud, he does note that all the deviations from the predicted model are in Ahmadinejad's favor: 'In general, combining the 2005 and 2009 data conveys the impression that a substantial core of the 2009 results reflected natural political process... [These] stand in contrast to the unusual pattern in which all of the notable discrepancies between the support Ahmadinejad actually received and the support the model predicts are always negative.
This pattern needs to be explained before one can have confidence that natural election processes were not supplemented with artificial manipulations.
'" In related news, EsonLinji notes reports in the Seattle PI and other sources that the US State Department has asked Twitter to delay system maintenance to prevent cutting off Iranians who have been relying on the service during the post-election crisis.
And if you would like to help ease the communication crunch, reader RCulpepper tips a blog post detailing how to set up a proxy server for users with Iranian IP addresses.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28368473</id>
	<title>Re:ProxyBox Virtual Appliance</title>
	<author>funkboy</author>
	<datestamp>1245248220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another mirror for you here:  <a href="http://punk.funk.nu/proxybox/" title="punk.funk.nu" rel="nofollow">http://punk.funk.nu/proxybox/</a> [punk.funk.nu]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another mirror for you here : http : //punk.funk.nu/proxybox/ [ punk.funk.nu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another mirror for you here:  http://punk.funk.nu/proxybox/ [punk.funk.nu]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356473</id>
	<title>Re:The results match pre-election poll</title>
	<author>bigpat</author>
	<datestamp>1245162960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting points.  It could very well be that Ahmadinejad won along the lines of the election results.</p><p>But I think the point is that it is too hard to tell for sure... lack of press, scientific polling, observers from the various parties, etc.</p><p>But considering we are all buddy buddy with absolute monarchs and dictators around the world, I don't think it matters either way whether this was a free and fair election.  Demonizing their election process is the wrong thing for outsiders to be doing, especially in the US when our own is also full of potential fraud and abuse and is certainly no less manipulated by the two-parties that are in power.  How the Iranians sort out their government is their own business, as far as I am concerned whomever ends up on top should simply be dealt with regardless of how they got there.</p><p>Political stability might effect what deals and agreements can be relied upon in the longer term, but that is a decision that we have to make based on how much support we think their government has among their own people.</p><p>In the end it is and has been counter productive for the US to criticize and threaten Iran and regardless of the outcome we need to stop doing that as much, both as individual citizens and as a government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting points .
It could very well be that Ahmadinejad won along the lines of the election results.But I think the point is that it is too hard to tell for sure... lack of press , scientific polling , observers from the various parties , etc.But considering we are all buddy buddy with absolute monarchs and dictators around the world , I do n't think it matters either way whether this was a free and fair election .
Demonizing their election process is the wrong thing for outsiders to be doing , especially in the US when our own is also full of potential fraud and abuse and is certainly no less manipulated by the two-parties that are in power .
How the Iranians sort out their government is their own business , as far as I am concerned whomever ends up on top should simply be dealt with regardless of how they got there.Political stability might effect what deals and agreements can be relied upon in the longer term , but that is a decision that we have to make based on how much support we think their government has among their own people.In the end it is and has been counter productive for the US to criticize and threaten Iran and regardless of the outcome we need to stop doing that as much , both as individual citizens and as a government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting points.
It could very well be that Ahmadinejad won along the lines of the election results.But I think the point is that it is too hard to tell for sure... lack of press, scientific polling, observers from the various parties, etc.But considering we are all buddy buddy with absolute monarchs and dictators around the world, I don't think it matters either way whether this was a free and fair election.
Demonizing their election process is the wrong thing for outsiders to be doing, especially in the US when our own is also full of potential fraud and abuse and is certainly no less manipulated by the two-parties that are in power.
How the Iranians sort out their government is their own business, as far as I am concerned whomever ends up on top should simply be dealt with regardless of how they got there.Political stability might effect what deals and agreements can be relied upon in the longer term, but that is a decision that we have to make based on how much support we think their government has among their own people.In the end it is and has been counter productive for the US to criticize and threaten Iran and regardless of the outcome we need to stop doing that as much, both as individual citizens and as a government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28367219</id>
	<title>Re:I was suspicious</title>
	<author>CommanderIsm</author>
	<datestamp>1245237900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>when that jumped up self-proclaimed arbiter of elections a dick-head professor said that bush's election was fair and square - (that is the freemason's version anyway)

so is this a guy? - what branch of the military complex does it work for?

if it's american - doubt it - look into it's mouth - it is not a free horse - it's horse shit</htmltext>
<tokenext>when that jumped up self-proclaimed arbiter of elections a dick-head professor said that bush 's election was fair and square - ( that is the freemason 's version anyway ) so is this a guy ?
- what branch of the military complex does it work for ?
if it 's american - doubt it - look into it 's mouth - it is not a free horse - it 's horse shit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when that jumped up self-proclaimed arbiter of elections a dick-head professor said that bush's election was fair and square - (that is the freemason's version anyway)

so is this a guy?
- what branch of the military complex does it work for?
if it's american - doubt it - look into it's mouth - it is not a free horse - it's horse shit</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357599</id>
	<title>Re:If you know anything about statistics...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245172620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll reply anon to myself with a link to a good article about the questions around the election:</p><p><a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0617/p06s01-wome.html" title="csmonitor.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0617/p06s01-wome.html</a> [csmonitor.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll reply anon to myself with a link to a good article about the questions around the election : http : //www.csmonitor.com/2009/0617/p06s01-wome.html [ csmonitor.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll reply anon to myself with a link to a good article about the questions around the election:http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0617/p06s01-wome.html [csmonitor.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28372121</id>
	<title>Re:If you know anything about statistics...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245329940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We iranian protesters believe that they have not counted our votes.<br>They have declared what they wanted. To them, our votes was trash and no one wastes his time for counting trash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We iranian protesters believe that they have not counted our votes.They have declared what they wanted .
To them , our votes was trash and no one wastes his time for counting trash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We iranian protesters believe that they have not counted our votes.They have declared what they wanted.
To them, our votes was trash and no one wastes his time for counting trash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355585</id>
	<title>Election irregularities</title>
	<author>V50</author>
	<datestamp>1245157020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a PoliSci student, I've spent a ton of time looking at election data for many countries, over the past hundred years or so. I see a lot of people jumping to conclusions based on some evidence, and not all necessarily means the election was tampered with.</p><p>Oddly, I've found a lot of people take the demonstrations in the street to be indication of fraud. What it is is indication of the belief in fraud. I'm pretty sure some people protested after Kerry lost the 2004 US election, that doesn't mean the election was tampered with (and yeah, I know I'll get some conspiracy nut reply to that with an essay.)</p><p>Several other stuff looks at odd vote shifting patterns, specifically the almost total abandonment of this one candidate in favor of the President. That is unusual, and calls to be looked into, but it's far from unprecedented. Quebec, in particular, has a history of some pretty wild swings from one party to another.</p><p>Another thing is the "rule" that as turnout goes up, the reformers do better. I've seen countless "rules" made in politics, only to be broken, because voters can act weird sometimes. It would be bucking the trend, but again, not definitive proof.</p><p>Overall, there is some evidence to suggest there may have been fraud, but as of yet, I've yet to see any "smoking gun". I saw similar analysis "prove" Kerry really won in 2004, and that didn't really amount to anything.</p><p>Looking at the whole situation, my gut tells me that there probably was some tampering, either deliberate or systematic, most likely in the process of actually voting. Basically, I think the strange results are most likely, if anything, the result of intimidation, either direct (guy waving around AK-47) or indirect (ie, Ahmed the voter chose the president because of a climate of fear).</p><p>It's very possible that Ahmadinejad won legit, even if his vote total was padded due to intimidation or result tampering. It's also very possible that there's a climate of fear in Iran, that essentially prevents a truly fair and free election from occurring. I honestly don't know much about Iran, so these are just my thoughts from being a (mostly Canadian) politics geek.</p><p>In case it's not clear, I'm not defending the Iranian results, only suggesting that I've not seen any "smoking gun" type proof, only "unusual" results, which can still happen in a free and fair election.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a PoliSci student , I 've spent a ton of time looking at election data for many countries , over the past hundred years or so .
I see a lot of people jumping to conclusions based on some evidence , and not all necessarily means the election was tampered with.Oddly , I 've found a lot of people take the demonstrations in the street to be indication of fraud .
What it is is indication of the belief in fraud .
I 'm pretty sure some people protested after Kerry lost the 2004 US election , that does n't mean the election was tampered with ( and yeah , I know I 'll get some conspiracy nut reply to that with an essay .
) Several other stuff looks at odd vote shifting patterns , specifically the almost total abandonment of this one candidate in favor of the President .
That is unusual , and calls to be looked into , but it 's far from unprecedented .
Quebec , in particular , has a history of some pretty wild swings from one party to another.Another thing is the " rule " that as turnout goes up , the reformers do better .
I 've seen countless " rules " made in politics , only to be broken , because voters can act weird sometimes .
It would be bucking the trend , but again , not definitive proof.Overall , there is some evidence to suggest there may have been fraud , but as of yet , I 've yet to see any " smoking gun " .
I saw similar analysis " prove " Kerry really won in 2004 , and that did n't really amount to anything.Looking at the whole situation , my gut tells me that there probably was some tampering , either deliberate or systematic , most likely in the process of actually voting .
Basically , I think the strange results are most likely , if anything , the result of intimidation , either direct ( guy waving around AK-47 ) or indirect ( ie , Ahmed the voter chose the president because of a climate of fear ) .It 's very possible that Ahmadinejad won legit , even if his vote total was padded due to intimidation or result tampering .
It 's also very possible that there 's a climate of fear in Iran , that essentially prevents a truly fair and free election from occurring .
I honestly do n't know much about Iran , so these are just my thoughts from being a ( mostly Canadian ) politics geek.In case it 's not clear , I 'm not defending the Iranian results , only suggesting that I 've not seen any " smoking gun " type proof , only " unusual " results , which can still happen in a free and fair election .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a PoliSci student, I've spent a ton of time looking at election data for many countries, over the past hundred years or so.
I see a lot of people jumping to conclusions based on some evidence, and not all necessarily means the election was tampered with.Oddly, I've found a lot of people take the demonstrations in the street to be indication of fraud.
What it is is indication of the belief in fraud.
I'm pretty sure some people protested after Kerry lost the 2004 US election, that doesn't mean the election was tampered with (and yeah, I know I'll get some conspiracy nut reply to that with an essay.
)Several other stuff looks at odd vote shifting patterns, specifically the almost total abandonment of this one candidate in favor of the President.
That is unusual, and calls to be looked into, but it's far from unprecedented.
Quebec, in particular, has a history of some pretty wild swings from one party to another.Another thing is the "rule" that as turnout goes up, the reformers do better.
I've seen countless "rules" made in politics, only to be broken, because voters can act weird sometimes.
It would be bucking the trend, but again, not definitive proof.Overall, there is some evidence to suggest there may have been fraud, but as of yet, I've yet to see any "smoking gun".
I saw similar analysis "prove" Kerry really won in 2004, and that didn't really amount to anything.Looking at the whole situation, my gut tells me that there probably was some tampering, either deliberate or systematic, most likely in the process of actually voting.
Basically, I think the strange results are most likely, if anything, the result of intimidation, either direct (guy waving around AK-47) or indirect (ie, Ahmed the voter chose the president because of a climate of fear).It's very possible that Ahmadinejad won legit, even if his vote total was padded due to intimidation or result tampering.
It's also very possible that there's a climate of fear in Iran, that essentially prevents a truly fair and free election from occurring.
I honestly don't know much about Iran, so these are just my thoughts from being a (mostly Canadian) politics geek.In case it's not clear, I'm not defending the Iranian results, only suggesting that I've not seen any "smoking gun" type proof, only "unusual" results, which can still happen in a free and fair election.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356157</id>
	<title>Re:The results match pre-election poll</title>
	<author>tksh</author>
	<datestamp>1245160620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a serious omission in that op-ed that misrepresents that 2:1 ratio.<br>
<br>
Namely, that Ahmadinejad only had the vote of 34\% of the those polled while Mousavi had 14\%.  So yes, technically that's 2:1 where the the sum total of both figures is less than 50\%.  Read the <a href="http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT\%20Iran\%20Survey\%20Report\%200609.pdf" title="terrorfreetomorrow.org" rel="nofollow">actual report</a> [terrorfreetomorrow.org] linked to in the article, they highlight this rather important qualifying information by the big red text on page 3.<br>
<br>
And if you look at the actual tallies for that question on page 52, question 27, you will see it's 34\% for Ahmadinejad, 14\% for Mousavi, 27\% (!) don't know and 15\% (!!) who refused to answer.  Both of those are non-trivial percentages that can swing either candidate for a landslide win.  This undermines the implication that there is strong support for Ahmadinejad, by a ratio of 2:1 to his closest rival. Seriously, that's an incredulous omission to make, nevermind the fact that the poll itself was conducted a month ago.  It is in these past two weeks that voter's opinion would better reflect their voting preferences, you know, after the actual presidential debates.<br>
<br>
Fivethirtyeight.com has a good <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/did-polling-predict-ahmadinejad-victory.html" title="fivethirtyeight.com" rel="nofollow">write up</a> [fivethirtyeight.com] of these points, explaining why the opinion expressed in the editorial is not supported by the report it cites.  <a href="http://www.juancole.com/2009/06/terror-free-tomorro-poll-did-not.html" title="juancole.com" rel="nofollow">Juan Cole</a> [juancole.com] has another good explanation as well.<br>
<br>
(The most interesting question on the survey for me BTW, was the question that asked about developing nuclear energy.  A full 83\% responded with 'strongly favour' while 11\% said 'somewhat favour'.  That's 94\% combined.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a serious omission in that op-ed that misrepresents that 2 : 1 ratio .
Namely , that Ahmadinejad only had the vote of 34 \ % of the those polled while Mousavi had 14 \ % .
So yes , technically that 's 2 : 1 where the the sum total of both figures is less than 50 \ % .
Read the actual report [ terrorfreetomorrow.org ] linked to in the article , they highlight this rather important qualifying information by the big red text on page 3 .
And if you look at the actual tallies for that question on page 52 , question 27 , you will see it 's 34 \ % for Ahmadinejad , 14 \ % for Mousavi , 27 \ % ( !
) do n't know and 15 \ % ( ! !
) who refused to answer .
Both of those are non-trivial percentages that can swing either candidate for a landslide win .
This undermines the implication that there is strong support for Ahmadinejad , by a ratio of 2 : 1 to his closest rival .
Seriously , that 's an incredulous omission to make , nevermind the fact that the poll itself was conducted a month ago .
It is in these past two weeks that voter 's opinion would better reflect their voting preferences , you know , after the actual presidential debates .
Fivethirtyeight.com has a good write up [ fivethirtyeight.com ] of these points , explaining why the opinion expressed in the editorial is not supported by the report it cites .
Juan Cole [ juancole.com ] has another good explanation as well .
( The most interesting question on the survey for me BTW , was the question that asked about developing nuclear energy .
A full 83 \ % responded with 'strongly favour ' while 11 \ % said 'somewhat favour' .
That 's 94 \ % combined .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a serious omission in that op-ed that misrepresents that 2:1 ratio.
Namely, that Ahmadinejad only had the vote of 34\% of the those polled while Mousavi had 14\%.
So yes, technically that's 2:1 where the the sum total of both figures is less than 50\%.
Read the actual report [terrorfreetomorrow.org] linked to in the article, they highlight this rather important qualifying information by the big red text on page 3.
And if you look at the actual tallies for that question on page 52, question 27, you will see it's 34\% for Ahmadinejad, 14\% for Mousavi, 27\% (!
) don't know and 15\% (!!
) who refused to answer.
Both of those are non-trivial percentages that can swing either candidate for a landslide win.
This undermines the implication that there is strong support for Ahmadinejad, by a ratio of 2:1 to his closest rival.
Seriously, that's an incredulous omission to make, nevermind the fact that the poll itself was conducted a month ago.
It is in these past two weeks that voter's opinion would better reflect their voting preferences, you know, after the actual presidential debates.
Fivethirtyeight.com has a good write up [fivethirtyeight.com] of these points, explaining why the opinion expressed in the editorial is not supported by the report it cites.
Juan Cole [juancole.com] has another good explanation as well.
(The most interesting question on the survey for me BTW, was the question that asked about developing nuclear energy.
A full 83\% responded with 'strongly favour' while 11\% said 'somewhat favour'.
That's 94\% combined.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28359763</id>
	<title>Re:If you know anything about statistics...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245241980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's correct. But the opposition candidate, Mousavi, said that he received a phone call at 2am the evening of the election indicating that he had won. When the results were announced later, it was Ahmadinejad by a landslide.</p></div><p>Damn it Florida!</p><p>Oh...we're talking about the IRAN election...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's correct .
But the opposition candidate , Mousavi , said that he received a phone call at 2am the evening of the election indicating that he had won .
When the results were announced later , it was Ahmadinejad by a landslide.Damn it Florida ! Oh...we 're talking about the IRAN election.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's correct.
But the opposition candidate, Mousavi, said that he received a phone call at 2am the evening of the election indicating that he had won.
When the results were announced later, it was Ahmadinejad by a landslide.Damn it Florida!Oh...we're talking about the IRAN election...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355467</id>
	<title>Makes me feel good on the inside.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245156300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm proud to see these young people stand up for their rights and for what they believe in. It's good to see these kids fighting the good fight. (Morgan Freedman anyone?)</p><p>I'm hoping this will come to a peaceful end, but any government that steals an election should be punished, and it seems the people of Iran will have none of it.</p><p>Keep fighting guys, I only wish I could help fro way over here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm proud to see these young people stand up for their rights and for what they believe in .
It 's good to see these kids fighting the good fight .
( Morgan Freedman anyone ?
) I 'm hoping this will come to a peaceful end , but any government that steals an election should be punished , and it seems the people of Iran will have none of it.Keep fighting guys , I only wish I could help fro way over here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm proud to see these young people stand up for their rights and for what they believe in.
It's good to see these kids fighting the good fight.
(Morgan Freedman anyone?
)I'm hoping this will come to a peaceful end, but any government that steals an election should be punished, and it seems the people of Iran will have none of it.Keep fighting guys, I only wish I could help fro way over here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355575</id>
	<title>Re:If you know anything about statistics...</title>
	<author>venicebeach</author>
	<datestamp>1245157020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not unreasonable to <i>predict</i> the results of an election with a random sample.  For instance, if you are a news organization you may want to do this.  However, the official results should not be based on a prediction, they should be the actual counted results. Statistical predictions have a chance of being wrong. <br> <br>
Furthermore, the idea of "random" sample is pretty far-fetched when you are counting votes from certain locations and the proportion of votes for each candidates varied by location.  Once you have enough information to take a truly random sample you also have enough information to actually count the votes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not unreasonable to predict the results of an election with a random sample .
For instance , if you are a news organization you may want to do this .
However , the official results should not be based on a prediction , they should be the actual counted results .
Statistical predictions have a chance of being wrong .
Furthermore , the idea of " random " sample is pretty far-fetched when you are counting votes from certain locations and the proportion of votes for each candidates varied by location .
Once you have enough information to take a truly random sample you also have enough information to actually count the votes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not unreasonable to predict the results of an election with a random sample.
For instance, if you are a news organization you may want to do this.
However, the official results should not be based on a prediction, they should be the actual counted results.
Statistical predictions have a chance of being wrong.
Furthermore, the idea of "random" sample is pretty far-fetched when you are counting votes from certain locations and the proportion of votes for each candidates varied by location.
Once you have enough information to take a truly random sample you also have enough information to actually count the votes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357537</id>
	<title>Re:Election irregularities</title>
	<author>BeardedChimp</author>
	<datestamp>1245171900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a pretty bad post even by slashdot standards.<br>
You start out by proclaiming "As a PoliSci student, I've spent a ton of time looking at election data for many countries", which as an argument to authority is trying to show how your opinion counts more than other posters (it does not).<br> <br>
This is then followed up by a false analogy "I'm pretty sure some people protested after Kerry lost the 2004 US election". The vast differences between these elections renders the analogy meaningless. Never the less you decide to throw in an ad hominem "and yeah, I know I'll get some conspiracy nut reply to that with an essay" just to reinforce it.<br> <br>
Time for some red herrings:<br>
"Quebec, in particular, has a history of some pretty wild swings from one party to another."<br>
"I've seen countless "rules" made in politics, only to be broken"<br>
"I saw similar analysis "prove" Kerry really won in 2004, and that didn't really amount to anything."<br> <br>
All divert attention towards other barely related topics.
<br>
You end by stating that you are "only suggesting that I've not seen any "smoking gun" ", which places an unfair burden of proof upon the opposition. The incumbent (Ahmadinejad) controlled every step of the elections, the smoking gun you are looking for is just not possible with this level of control.
<br> <br>
I apologise for pointing out the logical fallicies because usually posts like this annoy me in that they don't address (and therefore dismiss) the arguments but the post had too many problems to ignore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a pretty bad post even by slashdot standards .
You start out by proclaiming " As a PoliSci student , I 've spent a ton of time looking at election data for many countries " , which as an argument to authority is trying to show how your opinion counts more than other posters ( it does not ) .
This is then followed up by a false analogy " I 'm pretty sure some people protested after Kerry lost the 2004 US election " .
The vast differences between these elections renders the analogy meaningless .
Never the less you decide to throw in an ad hominem " and yeah , I know I 'll get some conspiracy nut reply to that with an essay " just to reinforce it .
Time for some red herrings : " Quebec , in particular , has a history of some pretty wild swings from one party to another .
" " I 've seen countless " rules " made in politics , only to be broken " " I saw similar analysis " prove " Kerry really won in 2004 , and that did n't really amount to anything .
" All divert attention towards other barely related topics .
You end by stating that you are " only suggesting that I 've not seen any " smoking gun " " , which places an unfair burden of proof upon the opposition .
The incumbent ( Ahmadinejad ) controlled every step of the elections , the smoking gun you are looking for is just not possible with this level of control .
I apologise for pointing out the logical fallicies because usually posts like this annoy me in that they do n't address ( and therefore dismiss ) the arguments but the post had too many problems to ignore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a pretty bad post even by slashdot standards.
You start out by proclaiming "As a PoliSci student, I've spent a ton of time looking at election data for many countries", which as an argument to authority is trying to show how your opinion counts more than other posters (it does not).
This is then followed up by a false analogy "I'm pretty sure some people protested after Kerry lost the 2004 US election".
The vast differences between these elections renders the analogy meaningless.
Never the less you decide to throw in an ad hominem "and yeah, I know I'll get some conspiracy nut reply to that with an essay" just to reinforce it.
Time for some red herrings:
"Quebec, in particular, has a history of some pretty wild swings from one party to another.
"
"I've seen countless "rules" made in politics, only to be broken"
"I saw similar analysis "prove" Kerry really won in 2004, and that didn't really amount to anything.
" 
All divert attention towards other barely related topics.
You end by stating that you are "only suggesting that I've not seen any "smoking gun" ", which places an unfair burden of proof upon the opposition.
The incumbent (Ahmadinejad) controlled every step of the elections, the smoking gun you are looking for is just not possible with this level of control.
I apologise for pointing out the logical fallicies because usually posts like this annoy me in that they don't address (and therefore dismiss) the arguments but the post had too many problems to ignore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356365</id>
	<title>Re:What about a better solution to counter censors</title>
	<author>Eli Gottlieb</author>
	<datestamp>1245162240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's called Tor.  Their website even has a Farsi translation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called Tor .
Their website even has a Farsi translation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called Tor.
Their website even has a Farsi translation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28365483</id>
	<title>Re:Election irregularities</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1245272340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I remember in Quebec my sister went to University there. She was not allowed to vote for the separatist referendum back in '95.</p><p>I believe the excuse was that she was not a resident, despite actually living in Quebec for years.</p><p>I always thought that was odd, and had more to do with the fact she was English speaking and originally from Nova Scotia.</p><p>Not to mention the phrasing of the ballot.</p><p>Anyway there are plenty of ways you can mess with results without having any funny business counting ballots. These and more in both the US and Canada, supposedly more democratic countries. Not to mention the the term "gerrymandering" was invented by the English!</p><p>So Iran rigged an election. Big deal, democracies do it all the time. The fact that the Clerics run the place anyway and are all appointed by a "Supreme Leader" (which I have trouble even saying with a straight face) who is basically a dictator, because only one person has ever been Supreme Leader, and funny enough it is the same person who created the position of Supreme Leader in the first place! Their military is in direct control of Mr "Supreme Leader" not the "President", I mean how much real power does he have. As I write this it seems more like if I was the leader of a revolution and say wanted to be a "Supreme Leader", as dictator had been given a bad name, why not set up a complicated system of government where I get to be the defacto power, but have token elections to keep the plebs, surfs, and gray masses happy. Seems like a sweet setup if you ask me (unless of course you are a pleb, surf, or part of the gray masses). Of course one could probably argue this of all modern democracies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I remember in Quebec my sister went to University there .
She was not allowed to vote for the separatist referendum back in '95.I believe the excuse was that she was not a resident , despite actually living in Quebec for years.I always thought that was odd , and had more to do with the fact she was English speaking and originally from Nova Scotia.Not to mention the phrasing of the ballot.Anyway there are plenty of ways you can mess with results without having any funny business counting ballots .
These and more in both the US and Canada , supposedly more democratic countries .
Not to mention the the term " gerrymandering " was invented by the English ! So Iran rigged an election .
Big deal , democracies do it all the time .
The fact that the Clerics run the place anyway and are all appointed by a " Supreme Leader " ( which I have trouble even saying with a straight face ) who is basically a dictator , because only one person has ever been Supreme Leader , and funny enough it is the same person who created the position of Supreme Leader in the first place !
Their military is in direct control of Mr " Supreme Leader " not the " President " , I mean how much real power does he have .
As I write this it seems more like if I was the leader of a revolution and say wanted to be a " Supreme Leader " , as dictator had been given a bad name , why not set up a complicated system of government where I get to be the defacto power , but have token elections to keep the plebs , surfs , and gray masses happy .
Seems like a sweet setup if you ask me ( unless of course you are a pleb , surf , or part of the gray masses ) .
Of course one could probably argue this of all modern democracies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I remember in Quebec my sister went to University there.
She was not allowed to vote for the separatist referendum back in '95.I believe the excuse was that she was not a resident, despite actually living in Quebec for years.I always thought that was odd, and had more to do with the fact she was English speaking and originally from Nova Scotia.Not to mention the phrasing of the ballot.Anyway there are plenty of ways you can mess with results without having any funny business counting ballots.
These and more in both the US and Canada, supposedly more democratic countries.
Not to mention the the term "gerrymandering" was invented by the English!So Iran rigged an election.
Big deal, democracies do it all the time.
The fact that the Clerics run the place anyway and are all appointed by a "Supreme Leader" (which I have trouble even saying with a straight face) who is basically a dictator, because only one person has ever been Supreme Leader, and funny enough it is the same person who created the position of Supreme Leader in the first place!
Their military is in direct control of Mr "Supreme Leader" not the "President", I mean how much real power does he have.
As I write this it seems more like if I was the leader of a revolution and say wanted to be a "Supreme Leader", as dictator had been given a bad name, why not set up a complicated system of government where I get to be the defacto power, but have token elections to keep the plebs, surfs, and gray masses happy.
Seems like a sweet setup if you ask me (unless of course you are a pleb, surf, or part of the gray masses).
Of course one could probably argue this of all modern democracies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28359507</id>
	<title>Re:Come on, It's Iran already</title>
	<author>gtall</author>
	<datestamp>1245239040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a unique position, it's okay for some else to spread FUD because sometime in the past, the U.S. Government did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a unique position , it 's okay for some else to spread FUD because sometime in the past , the U.S. Government did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a unique position, it's okay for some else to spread FUD because sometime in the past, the U.S. Government did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356657</id>
	<title>Re:Election irregularities</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245164100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"As a PoliSci student, I've spent a ton of time looking at election data for many countries, over the past hundred years or so."</p><p>Thats a long time to be a student.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" As a PoliSci student , I 've spent a ton of time looking at election data for many countries , over the past hundred years or so .
" Thats a long time to be a student .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"As a PoliSci student, I've spent a ton of time looking at election data for many countries, over the past hundred years or so.
"Thats a long time to be a student.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28368119</id>
	<title>dictators love elections</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245244740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I don't get is why everyone's acting all shocked. Dictators love elections; it makes the sheeple feel like actually voted for the guy in charge. Iran isn't changing any time soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I do n't get is why everyone 's acting all shocked .
Dictators love elections ; it makes the sheeple feel like actually voted for the guy in charge .
Iran is n't changing any time soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I don't get is why everyone's acting all shocked.
Dictators love elections; it makes the sheeple feel like actually voted for the guy in charge.
Iran isn't changing any time soon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356123</id>
	<title>Re:It happens</title>
	<author>techno-vampire</author>
	<datestamp>1245160380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>And on average, only 40\% of eligible voters do vote, so sometimes you would expect the total number of votes in a district to outnumber the total number of registered voters</i> <p>
Regardless of what percentage of eligible voters actually vote, it's impossible for the number of votes cast to be greater than the total number of registered voters unless fraudulent votes were cast.  Is that what you're suggesting?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And on average , only 40 \ % of eligible voters do vote , so sometimes you would expect the total number of votes in a district to outnumber the total number of registered voters Regardless of what percentage of eligible voters actually vote , it 's impossible for the number of votes cast to be greater than the total number of registered voters unless fraudulent votes were cast .
Is that what you 're suggesting ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And on average, only 40\% of eligible voters do vote, so sometimes you would expect the total number of votes in a district to outnumber the total number of registered voters 
Regardless of what percentage of eligible voters actually vote, it's impossible for the number of votes cast to be greater than the total number of registered voters unless fraudulent votes were cast.
Is that what you're suggesting?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357109</id>
	<title>Smoking Gun</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245167640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/\_0kNHx3Cdj8o/SjhTkkp90II/AAAAAAAAADA/zZQTwU5wKOU/s1600-h/377px-fakeresults\_iran.jpg" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">One smoking gun, coming right up.</a> [blogspot.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One smoking gun , coming right up .
[ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One smoking gun, coming right up.
[blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355291</id>
	<title>Come on, It's Iran already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245155400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like Iran has ever - ever done anything underhanded.
<br> <br>
And if you believe that, I have some more kool-aid for you to drink.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like Iran has ever - ever done anything underhanded .
And if you believe that , I have some more kool-aid for you to drink .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like Iran has ever - ever done anything underhanded.
And if you believe that, I have some more kool-aid for you to drink.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28358947</id>
	<title>Re:Election irregularities</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245231660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Oddly, I've found a lot of people take the demonstrations in the street to be indication of fraud. What it is is indication of the belief in fraud. I'm pretty sure some people protested after Kerry lost the 2004 US election, that doesn't mean the election was tampered with (and yeah, I know I'll get some conspiracy nut reply to that with an essay.)</p></div> </blockquote><p>For me, it's not that there are people in the streets.  Rather, it's the <em>number</em> of people in the streets.  From wikipedia, Tehran is about the size of Chicago.  Imagine if there were a million people in the streets of Chicago.  The 1968 riots were about 10k.  Today, we have millions Iranians who so convinced of election fraud that they are willing to risk being shot or beaten to protest the outcome of an election for <em>five days</em>.

</p><p>That just isn't comparable to any election we've ever had in this country, and for good reason.  The people who say, "Oh, who cares, it's just between a douche and a turd sandwich" don't take to the streets--that's reserved for the ones who care greatly about who wins, and who also feel cheated.  In the 2000 and 2004 elections, we knew it was going to be close, so the outcome wasn't a huge surprise.  If there are a million in the streets, how many more are there sitting at home, cheering them on?  How many didn't really care, or couldn't decide, but voted for the opposition?  And why can the pro-incumbent faction only round up a tenth as many protesters, even while busing them in?  According to the official results, they should have no problem finding twice as many as the opposition.

</p><p>That there are rioters doesn't prove that the election was stolen, but you should be asking yourself why there are so many of them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oddly , I 've found a lot of people take the demonstrations in the street to be indication of fraud .
What it is is indication of the belief in fraud .
I 'm pretty sure some people protested after Kerry lost the 2004 US election , that does n't mean the election was tampered with ( and yeah , I know I 'll get some conspiracy nut reply to that with an essay .
) For me , it 's not that there are people in the streets .
Rather , it 's the number of people in the streets .
From wikipedia , Tehran is about the size of Chicago .
Imagine if there were a million people in the streets of Chicago .
The 1968 riots were about 10k .
Today , we have millions Iranians who so convinced of election fraud that they are willing to risk being shot or beaten to protest the outcome of an election for five days .
That just is n't comparable to any election we 've ever had in this country , and for good reason .
The people who say , " Oh , who cares , it 's just between a douche and a turd sandwich " do n't take to the streets--that 's reserved for the ones who care greatly about who wins , and who also feel cheated .
In the 2000 and 2004 elections , we knew it was going to be close , so the outcome was n't a huge surprise .
If there are a million in the streets , how many more are there sitting at home , cheering them on ?
How many did n't really care , or could n't decide , but voted for the opposition ?
And why can the pro-incumbent faction only round up a tenth as many protesters , even while busing them in ?
According to the official results , they should have no problem finding twice as many as the opposition .
That there are rioters does n't prove that the election was stolen , but you should be asking yourself why there are so many of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oddly, I've found a lot of people take the demonstrations in the street to be indication of fraud.
What it is is indication of the belief in fraud.
I'm pretty sure some people protested after Kerry lost the 2004 US election, that doesn't mean the election was tampered with (and yeah, I know I'll get some conspiracy nut reply to that with an essay.
) For me, it's not that there are people in the streets.
Rather, it's the number of people in the streets.
From wikipedia, Tehran is about the size of Chicago.
Imagine if there were a million people in the streets of Chicago.
The 1968 riots were about 10k.
Today, we have millions Iranians who so convinced of election fraud that they are willing to risk being shot or beaten to protest the outcome of an election for five days.
That just isn't comparable to any election we've ever had in this country, and for good reason.
The people who say, "Oh, who cares, it's just between a douche and a turd sandwich" don't take to the streets--that's reserved for the ones who care greatly about who wins, and who also feel cheated.
In the 2000 and 2004 elections, we knew it was going to be close, so the outcome wasn't a huge surprise.
If there are a million in the streets, how many more are there sitting at home, cheering them on?
How many didn't really care, or couldn't decide, but voted for the opposition?
And why can the pro-incumbent faction only round up a tenth as many protesters, even while busing them in?
According to the official results, they should have no problem finding twice as many as the opposition.
That there are rioters doesn't prove that the election was stolen, but you should be asking yourself why there are so many of them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356691</id>
	<title>Re:If you know anything about statistics...</title>
	<author>GumphMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1245164340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In many parts of the world voting is not a two horse race or a highest vote wins system (I don't know which applies to Iran).  Some of us get to express a series of preferences with lower order preferences being significant if no-one get 50\% of the votes on first preferences (often the case here in Australia).   Counting a voter's first preference is indeed fairly quick, but tallying a preferential ballot can take quite some time, especially if the result is close or the electoral area is large and contains many polling stations.  </p><p>A casual glance at the last Federal election results for polling booths in my electorate shows that none handled more than 5000 voters (excluding absent/postal votes) and they are able to return a <i>provisional</i> first preference count for the House of Representatives within hours.  Usually the "certain winners" in provisional counts are sufficient to identify the new Government.  Senate votes and close races typically took days to be settled fully.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In many parts of the world voting is not a two horse race or a highest vote wins system ( I do n't know which applies to Iran ) .
Some of us get to express a series of preferences with lower order preferences being significant if no-one get 50 \ % of the votes on first preferences ( often the case here in Australia ) .
Counting a voter 's first preference is indeed fairly quick , but tallying a preferential ballot can take quite some time , especially if the result is close or the electoral area is large and contains many polling stations .
A casual glance at the last Federal election results for polling booths in my electorate shows that none handled more than 5000 voters ( excluding absent/postal votes ) and they are able to return a provisional first preference count for the House of Representatives within hours .
Usually the " certain winners " in provisional counts are sufficient to identify the new Government .
Senate votes and close races typically took days to be settled fully .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In many parts of the world voting is not a two horse race or a highest vote wins system (I don't know which applies to Iran).
Some of us get to express a series of preferences with lower order preferences being significant if no-one get 50\% of the votes on first preferences (often the case here in Australia).
Counting a voter's first preference is indeed fairly quick, but tallying a preferential ballot can take quite some time, especially if the result is close or the electoral area is large and contains many polling stations.
A casual glance at the last Federal election results for polling booths in my electorate shows that none handled more than 5000 voters (excluding absent/postal votes) and they are able to return a provisional first preference count for the House of Representatives within hours.
Usually the "certain winners" in provisional counts are sufficient to identify the new Government.
Senate votes and close races typically took days to be settled fully.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355759</id>
	<title>Re:If you know anything about statistics...</title>
	<author>jtownatpunk.net</author>
	<datestamp>1245157980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not saying there's nothing fishy but there's no reason that votes can't be hand-counted very quickly.  Let's make up some numbers.  Each polling station had 10000 votes.  Each polling station has 20 people to count the ballots.  That's 500 votes per person.  Give them 15 seconds to process each ballot.  That's a little over 2 hours for a first full count.  Maybe another hour to obtain the counts from all of the polling stations.  And that's assuming they wait until the polls close to start counting and numbers of voters far higher than I'd expect to show up at any single polling station and a very high voter:pollster ratio.</p><p>The whole idea that manual counts require days is silly if the count is done in an efficient manner using the people already on hand running the polling places.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not saying there 's nothing fishy but there 's no reason that votes ca n't be hand-counted very quickly .
Let 's make up some numbers .
Each polling station had 10000 votes .
Each polling station has 20 people to count the ballots .
That 's 500 votes per person .
Give them 15 seconds to process each ballot .
That 's a little over 2 hours for a first full count .
Maybe another hour to obtain the counts from all of the polling stations .
And that 's assuming they wait until the polls close to start counting and numbers of voters far higher than I 'd expect to show up at any single polling station and a very high voter : pollster ratio.The whole idea that manual counts require days is silly if the count is done in an efficient manner using the people already on hand running the polling places .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not saying there's nothing fishy but there's no reason that votes can't be hand-counted very quickly.
Let's make up some numbers.
Each polling station had 10000 votes.
Each polling station has 20 people to count the ballots.
That's 500 votes per person.
Give them 15 seconds to process each ballot.
That's a little over 2 hours for a first full count.
Maybe another hour to obtain the counts from all of the polling stations.
And that's assuming they wait until the polls close to start counting and numbers of voters far higher than I'd expect to show up at any single polling station and a very high voter:pollster ratio.The whole idea that manual counts require days is silly if the count is done in an efficient manner using the people already on hand running the polling places.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355881</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter whether the election was rigg</title>
	<author>Parthian</author>
	<datestamp>1245158760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please note people are using this opportunity to riot against the government as whole and not only because of the election results.

Let's say the people riot, who is going to take control if Ahmadinejad is overthrown? Mousavi? Who was approved to candidate for presidency by Khamenie? They are all the same shit. People are being fooled. Regime change is the only solution, go away Islamic Republic. Please come democracy or/and constitutional monarchy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please note people are using this opportunity to riot against the government as whole and not only because of the election results .
Let 's say the people riot , who is going to take control if Ahmadinejad is overthrown ?
Mousavi ? Who was approved to candidate for presidency by Khamenie ?
They are all the same shit .
People are being fooled .
Regime change is the only solution , go away Islamic Republic .
Please come democracy or/and constitutional monarchy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please note people are using this opportunity to riot against the government as whole and not only because of the election results.
Let's say the people riot, who is going to take control if Ahmadinejad is overthrown?
Mousavi? Who was approved to candidate for presidency by Khamenie?
They are all the same shit.
People are being fooled.
Regime change is the only solution, go away Islamic Republic.
Please come democracy or/and constitutional monarchy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356471</id>
	<title>Re:If you know anything about statistics...</title>
	<author>glebovitz</author>
	<datestamp>1245162960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's correct.  But the opposition candidate, Mousavi, said that he received a phone call at 2am the evening of the election indicating that he had won.  When the results were announced later, it was Ahmadinejad by a landslide.</p><p>Additionally, A'nejad officially had consistent support all across the country and all through demographics.  He officially did equally well in cities vs. rural areas.  Mousavi was heavily favored in cities.  A'nejad officially did equally well among sexes, age groups, class levels, ethnic groups, everything.  Mousavi was heavily favored among young students.  It's too uniform to be plausible.  For example, A'nejad even beat Mousavi in Mousavi's home Azeri province, Iranian Azerbaijan.  That was compared to Obama losing the African-American vote to McCain, it's just very suspect and highly improbable.</p><p>In addition to that, the other 2 candidates each officially received less than 1\% of the total.  In the pre-election polls each of those candidates had much higher support.</p><p>CNN has done an absolutely terrible job at covering this, the line that CNN is reporting is essentially the government's spin being reported as truth.  Fox seems to be the only US network with the balls to show much protest video.  The BBC's coverage has been among the best outside of Arabic media, which is difficult to receive in a lot of places.  The most up-to-date information about this can usually be found in whichever fark.com thread people are currently posting in, they've gone through 9 or 10 now with several thousand posts in each.  Needless to say, any respect I had for CNN has essentially evaporated.  Their international coverage used to be among the best in the US, now they might as well be the US-based Iranian spin machine.</p></div><p>You're just discovering this now? Are you saying that you recently had respect for for the same network that through out objective headline news reporting for the likes of Nancy Grace and Glenn Beck?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's correct .
But the opposition candidate , Mousavi , said that he received a phone call at 2am the evening of the election indicating that he had won .
When the results were announced later , it was Ahmadinejad by a landslide.Additionally , A'nejad officially had consistent support all across the country and all through demographics .
He officially did equally well in cities vs. rural areas .
Mousavi was heavily favored in cities .
A'nejad officially did equally well among sexes , age groups , class levels , ethnic groups , everything .
Mousavi was heavily favored among young students .
It 's too uniform to be plausible .
For example , A'nejad even beat Mousavi in Mousavi 's home Azeri province , Iranian Azerbaijan .
That was compared to Obama losing the African-American vote to McCain , it 's just very suspect and highly improbable.In addition to that , the other 2 candidates each officially received less than 1 \ % of the total .
In the pre-election polls each of those candidates had much higher support.CNN has done an absolutely terrible job at covering this , the line that CNN is reporting is essentially the government 's spin being reported as truth .
Fox seems to be the only US network with the balls to show much protest video .
The BBC 's coverage has been among the best outside of Arabic media , which is difficult to receive in a lot of places .
The most up-to-date information about this can usually be found in whichever fark.com thread people are currently posting in , they 've gone through 9 or 10 now with several thousand posts in each .
Needless to say , any respect I had for CNN has essentially evaporated .
Their international coverage used to be among the best in the US , now they might as well be the US-based Iranian spin machine.You 're just discovering this now ?
Are you saying that you recently had respect for for the same network that through out objective headline news reporting for the likes of Nancy Grace and Glenn Beck ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's correct.
But the opposition candidate, Mousavi, said that he received a phone call at 2am the evening of the election indicating that he had won.
When the results were announced later, it was Ahmadinejad by a landslide.Additionally, A'nejad officially had consistent support all across the country and all through demographics.
He officially did equally well in cities vs. rural areas.
Mousavi was heavily favored in cities.
A'nejad officially did equally well among sexes, age groups, class levels, ethnic groups, everything.
Mousavi was heavily favored among young students.
It's too uniform to be plausible.
For example, A'nejad even beat Mousavi in Mousavi's home Azeri province, Iranian Azerbaijan.
That was compared to Obama losing the African-American vote to McCain, it's just very suspect and highly improbable.In addition to that, the other 2 candidates each officially received less than 1\% of the total.
In the pre-election polls each of those candidates had much higher support.CNN has done an absolutely terrible job at covering this, the line that CNN is reporting is essentially the government's spin being reported as truth.
Fox seems to be the only US network with the balls to show much protest video.
The BBC's coverage has been among the best outside of Arabic media, which is difficult to receive in a lot of places.
The most up-to-date information about this can usually be found in whichever fark.com thread people are currently posting in, they've gone through 9 or 10 now with several thousand posts in each.
Needless to say, any respect I had for CNN has essentially evaporated.
Their international coverage used to be among the best in the US, now they might as well be the US-based Iranian spin machine.You're just discovering this now?
Are you saying that you recently had respect for for the same network that through out objective headline news reporting for the likes of Nancy Grace and Glenn Beck?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356711</id>
	<title>Re:The results match pre-election poll</title>
	<author>fishbowl</author>
	<datestamp>1245164520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;That warms my heart. I really don't want Iran to get nuclear weapons.</p><p>It surprises me more that anyone doesn't have nuclear weapons than that they do.</p><p>The physics is undergrad material now, the mechanical tech is within the tolerances of the average aircraft machine shop, and the only real obstacle is the fact that the highly distributed effort of refining fissionable material must be done secretly, but why is that so hard, really?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; That warms my heart .
I really do n't want Iran to get nuclear weapons.It surprises me more that anyone does n't have nuclear weapons than that they do.The physics is undergrad material now , the mechanical tech is within the tolerances of the average aircraft machine shop , and the only real obstacle is the fact that the highly distributed effort of refining fissionable material must be done secretly , but why is that so hard , really ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;That warms my heart.
I really don't want Iran to get nuclear weapons.It surprises me more that anyone doesn't have nuclear weapons than that they do.The physics is undergrad material now, the mechanical tech is within the tolerances of the average aircraft machine shop, and the only real obstacle is the fact that the highly distributed effort of refining fissionable material must be done secretly, but why is that so hard, really?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357779</id>
	<title>Re:The results match pre-election poll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245174840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Iran is estimated to be a net oil importer within 10 years based on rising population and affluence, and declining production.  They won't be able to burn it on the cheap for electricity any more at that point - hence the need for a new cheap(ish) source of electricity.  And hey, if they can make The West sweat while they do it...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Iran is estimated to be a net oil importer within 10 years based on rising population and affluence , and declining production .
They wo n't be able to burn it on the cheap for electricity any more at that point - hence the need for a new cheap ( ish ) source of electricity .
And hey , if they can make The West sweat while they do it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Iran is estimated to be a net oil importer within 10 years based on rising population and affluence, and declining production.
They won't be able to burn it on the cheap for electricity any more at that point - hence the need for a new cheap(ish) source of electricity.
And hey, if they can make The West sweat while they do it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356557</id>
	<title>Re:If you know anything about statistics...</title>
	<author>peragrin</author>
	<datestamp>1245163380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CNN repeatably has stated that they are going on second and third hand information.  That they are watching German and british news sites for information.</p><p>It is in all their articles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CNN repeatably has stated that they are going on second and third hand information .
That they are watching German and british news sites for information.It is in all their articles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CNN repeatably has stated that they are going on second and third hand information.
That they are watching German and british news sites for information.It is in all their articles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28363155</id>
	<title>Re:Uhm, missing the obvious here</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1245261600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are absolutely correct.  The validity of the election results is not the relevant issue anymore.  Whats relevant is that the Iranian people saw how their government acted before and after, how they announced the results early, how they silenced all opposition media, how they arrested opposition leaders, how they sent riot police into the streets to battle their own people.  As a result this is becoming a movement that goes well beyond whether Ahmadinejad was really elected or Mosavi's platform of modest reforms.  It's becoming a cultural battle.  While I know I'm going way out on a limb here, in a way it feels like East Germany in the year before the wall came down, when the people saw the brutality of their own government against them, and refused to sit down and accept it any more.  If the protests go on, and the government's response remains as violent, then the cause will only reinforce itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are absolutely correct .
The validity of the election results is not the relevant issue anymore .
Whats relevant is that the Iranian people saw how their government acted before and after , how they announced the results early , how they silenced all opposition media , how they arrested opposition leaders , how they sent riot police into the streets to battle their own people .
As a result this is becoming a movement that goes well beyond whether Ahmadinejad was really elected or Mosavi 's platform of modest reforms .
It 's becoming a cultural battle .
While I know I 'm going way out on a limb here , in a way it feels like East Germany in the year before the wall came down , when the people saw the brutality of their own government against them , and refused to sit down and accept it any more .
If the protests go on , and the government 's response remains as violent , then the cause will only reinforce itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are absolutely correct.
The validity of the election results is not the relevant issue anymore.
Whats relevant is that the Iranian people saw how their government acted before and after, how they announced the results early, how they silenced all opposition media, how they arrested opposition leaders, how they sent riot police into the streets to battle their own people.
As a result this is becoming a movement that goes well beyond whether Ahmadinejad was really elected or Mosavi's platform of modest reforms.
It's becoming a cultural battle.
While I know I'm going way out on a limb here, in a way it feels like East Germany in the year before the wall came down, when the people saw the brutality of their own government against them, and refused to sit down and accept it any more.
If the protests go on, and the government's response remains as violent, then the cause will only reinforce itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28362109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355993</id>
	<title>Re:The results match pre-election poll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245159480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We also want to exterminate the jews.  Hopefully, Barack Obama and Ahmadinejad will be able to do just that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We also want to exterminate the jews .
Hopefully , Barack Obama and Ahmadinejad will be able to do just that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We also want to exterminate the jews.
Hopefully, Barack Obama and Ahmadinejad will be able to do just that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28361351</id>
	<title>Re:It happens</title>
	<author>david\_thornley</author>
	<datestamp>1245252840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
That's not actually true.  After one of the rounds of trying to adjust the vote, Franken's lead shrank from something like 200 to something like 80.  It went back up in the next round of absentee ballot counting that Coleman pushed for.  (Not to mention that in previous Senate races, the difference between initial reports and final registered totals is quite comparable to the change this time around.  We have historical evidence in elections where there was no real pressure to fudge the votes a few hundred in either direction.)
</p><p>
Nor do I understand how the number of votes can outnumber the number of registered voters, regardless of the usual turnout.  In MN, we do have at-the-polls registration, so it's possible for there to be more votes than previously registered voters, but that's not the same thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not actually true .
After one of the rounds of trying to adjust the vote , Franken 's lead shrank from something like 200 to something like 80 .
It went back up in the next round of absentee ballot counting that Coleman pushed for .
( Not to mention that in previous Senate races , the difference between initial reports and final registered totals is quite comparable to the change this time around .
We have historical evidence in elections where there was no real pressure to fudge the votes a few hundred in either direction .
) Nor do I understand how the number of votes can outnumber the number of registered voters , regardless of the usual turnout .
In MN , we do have at-the-polls registration , so it 's possible for there to be more votes than previously registered voters , but that 's not the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
That's not actually true.
After one of the rounds of trying to adjust the vote, Franken's lead shrank from something like 200 to something like 80.
It went back up in the next round of absentee ballot counting that Coleman pushed for.
(Not to mention that in previous Senate races, the difference between initial reports and final registered totals is quite comparable to the change this time around.
We have historical evidence in elections where there was no real pressure to fudge the votes a few hundred in either direction.
)

Nor do I understand how the number of votes can outnumber the number of registered voters, regardless of the usual turnout.
In MN, we do have at-the-polls registration, so it's possible for there to be more votes than previously registered voters, but that's not the same thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356525</id>
	<title>Re:The results match pre-election poll</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1245163200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure, you are right, but as another person in this poll pointed out, and as TFA mentions, there is no smoking gun, there is no clear evidence of election fraud, and while fraud could have happened, there is no particularly good reason to think that there was.  All the evidence produced seems to show that yeah, Ahmadinejad probably could have won, and possibly by that much.<br> <br>
There are protests in Iran, but this isn't the first time that has happened.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , you are right , but as another person in this poll pointed out , and as TFA mentions , there is no smoking gun , there is no clear evidence of election fraud , and while fraud could have happened , there is no particularly good reason to think that there was .
All the evidence produced seems to show that yeah , Ahmadinejad probably could have won , and possibly by that much .
There are protests in Iran , but this is n't the first time that has happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, you are right, but as another person in this poll pointed out, and as TFA mentions, there is no smoking gun, there is no clear evidence of election fraud, and while fraud could have happened, there is no particularly good reason to think that there was.
All the evidence produced seems to show that yeah, Ahmadinejad probably could have won, and possibly by that much.
There are protests in Iran, but this isn't the first time that has happened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355783</id>
	<title>Re:If you know anything about statistics...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245158100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's correct.  But the opposition candidate, Mousavi, said that he received a phone call at 2am the evening of the election indicating that he had won.  When the results were announced later, it was Ahmadinejad by a landslide.</p><p>Additionally, A'nejad officially had consistent support all across the country and all through demographics.  He officially did equally well in cities vs. rural areas.  Mousavi was heavily favored in cities.  A'nejad officially did equally well among sexes, age groups, class levels, ethnic groups, everything.  Mousavi was heavily favored among young students.  It's too uniform to be plausible.  For example, A'nejad even beat Mousavi in Mousavi's home Azeri province, Iranian Azerbaijan.  That was compared to Obama losing the African-American vote to McCain, it's just very suspect and highly improbable.</p><p>In addition to that, the other 2 candidates each officially received less than 1\% of the total.  In the pre-election polls each of those candidates had much higher support.</p><p>CNN has done an absolutely terrible job at covering this, the line that CNN is reporting is essentially the government's spin being reported as truth.  Fox seems to be the only US network with the balls to show much protest video.  The BBC's coverage has been among the best outside of Arabic media, which is difficult to receive in a lot of places.  The most up-to-date information about this can usually be found in whichever fark.com thread people are currently posting in, they've gone through 9 or 10 now with several thousand posts in each.  Needless to say, any respect I had for CNN has essentially evaporated.  Their international coverage used to be among the best in the US, now they might as well be the US-based Iranian spin machine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's correct .
But the opposition candidate , Mousavi , said that he received a phone call at 2am the evening of the election indicating that he had won .
When the results were announced later , it was Ahmadinejad by a landslide.Additionally , A'nejad officially had consistent support all across the country and all through demographics .
He officially did equally well in cities vs. rural areas .
Mousavi was heavily favored in cities .
A'nejad officially did equally well among sexes , age groups , class levels , ethnic groups , everything .
Mousavi was heavily favored among young students .
It 's too uniform to be plausible .
For example , A'nejad even beat Mousavi in Mousavi 's home Azeri province , Iranian Azerbaijan .
That was compared to Obama losing the African-American vote to McCain , it 's just very suspect and highly improbable.In addition to that , the other 2 candidates each officially received less than 1 \ % of the total .
In the pre-election polls each of those candidates had much higher support.CNN has done an absolutely terrible job at covering this , the line that CNN is reporting is essentially the government 's spin being reported as truth .
Fox seems to be the only US network with the balls to show much protest video .
The BBC 's coverage has been among the best outside of Arabic media , which is difficult to receive in a lot of places .
The most up-to-date information about this can usually be found in whichever fark.com thread people are currently posting in , they 've gone through 9 or 10 now with several thousand posts in each .
Needless to say , any respect I had for CNN has essentially evaporated .
Their international coverage used to be among the best in the US , now they might as well be the US-based Iranian spin machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's correct.
But the opposition candidate, Mousavi, said that he received a phone call at 2am the evening of the election indicating that he had won.
When the results were announced later, it was Ahmadinejad by a landslide.Additionally, A'nejad officially had consistent support all across the country and all through demographics.
He officially did equally well in cities vs. rural areas.
Mousavi was heavily favored in cities.
A'nejad officially did equally well among sexes, age groups, class levels, ethnic groups, everything.
Mousavi was heavily favored among young students.
It's too uniform to be plausible.
For example, A'nejad even beat Mousavi in Mousavi's home Azeri province, Iranian Azerbaijan.
That was compared to Obama losing the African-American vote to McCain, it's just very suspect and highly improbable.In addition to that, the other 2 candidates each officially received less than 1\% of the total.
In the pre-election polls each of those candidates had much higher support.CNN has done an absolutely terrible job at covering this, the line that CNN is reporting is essentially the government's spin being reported as truth.
Fox seems to be the only US network with the balls to show much protest video.
The BBC's coverage has been among the best outside of Arabic media, which is difficult to receive in a lot of places.
The most up-to-date information about this can usually be found in whichever fark.com thread people are currently posting in, they've gone through 9 or 10 now with several thousand posts in each.
Needless to say, any respect I had for CNN has essentially evaporated.
Their international coverage used to be among the best in the US, now they might as well be the US-based Iranian spin machine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355597</id>
	<title>It doesn't matter whether the election was rigged</title>
	<author>bersl2</author>
	<datestamp>1245157140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The point is that enough of the people of Iran find the results incredible and are in general angry enough about their present conditions that they have lost faith in the current government and desire significant reforms. This won't go away, ever. Even if a complete do-over of the election is performed, the fact that peaceful assembly was denied and communications have been disrupted, among many other things, makes this a moot point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point is that enough of the people of Iran find the results incredible and are in general angry enough about their present conditions that they have lost faith in the current government and desire significant reforms .
This wo n't go away , ever .
Even if a complete do-over of the election is performed , the fact that peaceful assembly was denied and communications have been disrupted , among many other things , makes this a moot point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point is that enough of the people of Iran find the results incredible and are in general angry enough about their present conditions that they have lost faith in the current government and desire significant reforms.
This won't go away, ever.
Even if a complete do-over of the election is performed, the fact that peaceful assembly was denied and communications have been disrupted, among many other things, makes this a moot point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355487</id>
	<title>Re:The problem of time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245156420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I doubt he could have won by double digit margins by fraud alone.  He just won the same way Bush won twice.  He had the support of ultra coservatives in rural areas who only care about one or two issues, and played into their fears and prejudices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt he could have won by double digit margins by fraud alone .
He just won the same way Bush won twice .
He had the support of ultra coservatives in rural areas who only care about one or two issues , and played into their fears and prejudices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt he could have won by double digit margins by fraud alone.
He just won the same way Bush won twice.
He had the support of ultra coservatives in rural areas who only care about one or two issues, and played into their fears and prejudices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357985</id>
	<title>NO, not THE people of Iran</title>
	<author>aepervius</author>
	<datestamp>1245177360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Only a minority find the result incredible, a vocal minority, but a minority nonetheless. The vast majority are in their home. We don't know what they think or care.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only a minority find the result incredible , a vocal minority , but a minority nonetheless .
The vast majority are in their home .
We do n't know what they think or care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only a minority find the result incredible, a vocal minority, but a minority nonetheless.
The vast majority are in their home.
We don't know what they think or care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356249</id>
	<title>Re:The results match pre-election poll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245161280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That poll was done before Mousavi was even an official candidate. The campaigns only last a month before the elections in Iran. Also, over half the responses to that poll were no opinion. That poll is worthless and has been thoroughly discredited already.</p><p>Ahmadinejad is claimed to have won heavily in all regions and across all demographics before the polls had even closed. Troops were predeployed and communications systems shut down or disrupted during the elections. Reporting by anyone other than the state-controlled media has been declared illegal. The people there have every reason to believe that fraud has occured.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That poll was done before Mousavi was even an official candidate .
The campaigns only last a month before the elections in Iran .
Also , over half the responses to that poll were no opinion .
That poll is worthless and has been thoroughly discredited already.Ahmadinejad is claimed to have won heavily in all regions and across all demographics before the polls had even closed .
Troops were predeployed and communications systems shut down or disrupted during the elections .
Reporting by anyone other than the state-controlled media has been declared illegal .
The people there have every reason to believe that fraud has occured .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That poll was done before Mousavi was even an official candidate.
The campaigns only last a month before the elections in Iran.
Also, over half the responses to that poll were no opinion.
That poll is worthless and has been thoroughly discredited already.Ahmadinejad is claimed to have won heavily in all regions and across all demographics before the polls had even closed.
Troops were predeployed and communications systems shut down or disrupted during the elections.
Reporting by anyone other than the state-controlled media has been declared illegal.
The people there have every reason to believe that fraud has occured.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356285</id>
	<title>Re:If you know anything about reality...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245161580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you know anything about reality you know that RANDOM is much more slippery in real samples than in theory.</p><p>If it wasn't so we would never be surprised in elections as they have sampled enough people before the election to give us the answer...</p><p>Except their samples are never perfectly random.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you know anything about reality you know that RANDOM is much more slippery in real samples than in theory.If it was n't so we would never be surprised in elections as they have sampled enough people before the election to give us the answer...Except their samples are never perfectly random .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you know anything about reality you know that RANDOM is much more slippery in real samples than in theory.If it wasn't so we would never be surprised in elections as they have sampled enough people before the election to give us the answer...Except their samples are never perfectly random.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356443</id>
	<title>Re:If you know anything about statistics...</title>
	<author>Narpak</author>
	<datestamp>1245162720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally I am checking <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/" title="guardian.co.uk">The Guardian</a> [guardian.co.uk] and <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/" title="bbc.co.uk">BBC News</a> [bbc.co.uk], CNN.com (which I agree is pretty horrible),<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/" title="msn.com">MSNBC</a> [msn.com], <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/" title="independent.co.uk">The Independent</a> [independent.co.uk], <a href="http://en.wikinews.org/" title="wikinews.org">Wikinews</a> [wikinews.org], <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/" title="thedailybeast.com">The Daily Beast</a> [thedailybeast.com] (and Slashdot of course) and some random ones. I'd be interested to know which sources people are using to get news about the situation in Iran, or for that matter other international events of interest. Also I find it helpful to try to read around to get news and articles from different perspectives and not rely too heavily on one single source.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I am checking The Guardian [ guardian.co.uk ] and BBC News [ bbc.co.uk ] , CNN.com ( which I agree is pretty horrible ) ,MSNBC [ msn.com ] , The Independent [ independent.co.uk ] , Wikinews [ wikinews.org ] , The Daily Beast [ thedailybeast.com ] ( and Slashdot of course ) and some random ones .
I 'd be interested to know which sources people are using to get news about the situation in Iran , or for that matter other international events of interest .
Also I find it helpful to try to read around to get news and articles from different perspectives and not rely too heavily on one single source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I am checking The Guardian [guardian.co.uk] and BBC News [bbc.co.uk], CNN.com (which I agree is pretty horrible),MSNBC [msn.com], The Independent [independent.co.uk], Wikinews [wikinews.org], The Daily Beast [thedailybeast.com] (and Slashdot of course) and some random ones.
I'd be interested to know which sources people are using to get news about the situation in Iran, or for that matter other international events of interest.
Also I find it helpful to try to read around to get news and articles from different perspectives and not rely too heavily on one single source.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357317</id>
	<title>Re:If you know anything about statistics...</title>
	<author>Dragonslicer</author>
	<datestamp>1245169680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait, CNN still does reporting? I thought they switched to just reading whatever crap people send them over Twitter?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , CNN still does reporting ?
I thought they switched to just reading whatever crap people send them over Twitter ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, CNN still does reporting?
I thought they switched to just reading whatever crap people send them over Twitter?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357107</id>
	<title>Re:If you know anything about statistics...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245167640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>However, the official results should not be based on a prediction, they should be the actual counted results.</i></p><p>We don't even do that here in the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However , the official results should not be based on a prediction , they should be the actual counted results.We do n't even do that here in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, the official results should not be based on a prediction, they should be the actual counted results.We don't even do that here in the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357651</id>
	<title>Re:The results match pre-election poll</title>
	<author>DrEasy</author>
	<datestamp>1245173340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All this discussion regarding who actually won the elections is a strawman. We know the process isn't democratic, since many opposition parties are outlawed, and there are many political prisoners in Iran. There is no real choice presented to the voters, all the candidates subscribe to the premise of an islamic republic, they all want America's doom etc. (Obama said just as much) These candidates do not represent the electors. Therefore the protest is justified. The people are protesting much more than the results of the election, but that's as far as they can go without risking arrest (although it seems that they can't even do that safely).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All this discussion regarding who actually won the elections is a strawman .
We know the process is n't democratic , since many opposition parties are outlawed , and there are many political prisoners in Iran .
There is no real choice presented to the voters , all the candidates subscribe to the premise of an islamic republic , they all want America 's doom etc .
( Obama said just as much ) These candidates do not represent the electors .
Therefore the protest is justified .
The people are protesting much more than the results of the election , but that 's as far as they can go without risking arrest ( although it seems that they ca n't even do that safely ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All this discussion regarding who actually won the elections is a strawman.
We know the process isn't democratic, since many opposition parties are outlawed, and there are many political prisoners in Iran.
There is no real choice presented to the voters, all the candidates subscribe to the premise of an islamic republic, they all want America's doom etc.
(Obama said just as much) These candidates do not represent the electors.
Therefore the protest is justified.
The people are protesting much more than the results of the election, but that's as far as they can go without risking arrest (although it seems that they can't even do that safely).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355657</id>
	<title>What A Fucking Piece Of Garbage You Are</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245157500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You filthy piece of shit.</p><p>This hilariously inept flooding of social media sites by US intelligence agencies throwing a tempertantrum over their failed attempts to illegally interfere in Iran's elections and complete pieces of garbage like you are just lapping up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You filthy piece of shit.This hilariously inept flooding of social media sites by US intelligence agencies throwing a tempertantrum over their failed attempts to illegally interfere in Iran 's elections and complete pieces of garbage like you are just lapping up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You filthy piece of shit.This hilariously inept flooding of social media sites by US intelligence agencies throwing a tempertantrum over their failed attempts to illegally interfere in Iran's elections and complete pieces of garbage like you are just lapping up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355607</id>
	<title>You think like a ReThuglican Jew</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245157200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You think like a ReThuglican Jew</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You think like a ReThuglican Jew</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think like a ReThuglican Jew</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28358495</id>
	<title>Re:If you know anything about statistics...</title>
	<author>gaspar ilom</author>
	<datestamp>1245269280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; A'nejad officially did equally well among sexes, age groups, class levels</p><p>How do you or anyone else know this?   Do Iranians vote with ballots that mark their age, sex, and income?</p><p>You're presumably talking about the final count of the votes cast, not exit-polling.  Anonymous ballots would only allow analysis of irregularities that occur across *regions.* (and, perhaps "ethnic group" could be correlated to region.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; A'nejad officially did equally well among sexes , age groups , class levelsHow do you or anyone else know this ?
Do Iranians vote with ballots that mark their age , sex , and income ? You 're presumably talking about the final count of the votes cast , not exit-polling .
Anonymous ballots would only allow analysis of irregularities that occur across * regions .
* ( and , perhaps " ethnic group " could be correlated to region .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; A'nejad officially did equally well among sexes, age groups, class levelsHow do you or anyone else know this?
Do Iranians vote with ballots that mark their age, sex, and income?You're presumably talking about the final count of the votes cast, not exit-polling.
Anonymous ballots would only allow analysis of irregularities that occur across *regions.
* (and, perhaps "ethnic group" could be correlated to region.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357151</id>
	<title>Re:Proxy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245168000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Iranian government is paying really well for IP addresses.</p><p>At $20 a head I got about 200-300 IP's before they realized they were being tracked and tricked by the IT's at the ISP, they run the ISP so they can track down to the address where it is and have jammed all wireless routers with some Russian equiptment they bough. Our IT's will hunt you down.</p><p>Long live the IRGC and you will suffer in prison.</p><p>We are known as the Basij (secret police no uniforms) and constantly come to bust up apartments we detect lots of communication and anti-government talk.<br>We come crashing in through your windows and doors to destroy your computers, cell phones and anything else you might use to spread propaganda.<br><a href="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cd2\_1245195056" title="liveleak.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cd2\_1245195056</a> [liveleak.com]</p><p>WE' ARE LISTENING AND WATCHING YOU ALL THE TIME!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Iranian government is paying really well for IP addresses.At $ 20 a head I got about 200-300 IP 's before they realized they were being tracked and tricked by the IT 's at the ISP , they run the ISP so they can track down to the address where it is and have jammed all wireless routers with some Russian equiptment they bough .
Our IT 's will hunt you down.Long live the IRGC and you will suffer in prison.We are known as the Basij ( secret police no uniforms ) and constantly come to bust up apartments we detect lots of communication and anti-government talk.We come crashing in through your windows and doors to destroy your computers , cell phones and anything else you might use to spread propaganda.http : //www.liveleak.com/view ? i = cd2 \ _1245195056 [ liveleak.com ] WE ' ARE LISTENING AND WATCHING YOU ALL THE TIME ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Iranian government is paying really well for IP addresses.At $20 a head I got about 200-300 IP's before they realized they were being tracked and tricked by the IT's at the ISP, they run the ISP so they can track down to the address where it is and have jammed all wireless routers with some Russian equiptment they bough.
Our IT's will hunt you down.Long live the IRGC and you will suffer in prison.We are known as the Basij (secret police no uniforms) and constantly come to bust up apartments we detect lots of communication and anti-government talk.We come crashing in through your windows and doors to destroy your computers, cell phones and anything else you might use to spread propaganda.http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cd2\_1245195056 [liveleak.com]WE' ARE LISTENING AND WATCHING YOU ALL THE TIME!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28362063</id>
	<title>Re:The results match pre-election poll</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1245256380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's also worth noting, as Hooman Hadj did on Charlie Rose on Monday night, that that poll was conducted *prior* to the Iranian campaign period, at which point few really knew anything about Mousavi.  As such, I'd be highly skeptical of that poll and it's ability to predict the outcome of the election.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's also worth noting , as Hooman Hadj did on Charlie Rose on Monday night , that that poll was conducted * prior * to the Iranian campaign period , at which point few really knew anything about Mousavi .
As such , I 'd be highly skeptical of that poll and it 's ability to predict the outcome of the election .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's also worth noting, as Hooman Hadj did on Charlie Rose on Monday night, that that poll was conducted *prior* to the Iranian campaign period, at which point few really knew anything about Mousavi.
As such, I'd be highly skeptical of that poll and it's ability to predict the outcome of the election.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28359783</id>
	<title>Election Doesn't Matter</title>
	<author>georgenh16</author>
	<datestamp>1245242280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The election doesn't matter anyways.
<br> <br>
The president is really just a figurehead - the Ayatollah rules the country.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The election does n't matter anyways .
The president is really just a figurehead - the Ayatollah rules the country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The election doesn't matter anyways.
The president is really just a figurehead - the Ayatollah rules the country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473</id>
	<title>The results match pre-election poll</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1245156300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757.html" title="washingtonpost.com">Washington Post did an independent poll</a> [washingtonpost.com] before the election showing that the majority of the public DID support Ahmadinejad by nearly two thirds, even among Mousavi's native ethnic group, the Azeri.  It seems that the only group that DIDN'T support Ahmadinejad was the internet connected (a small minority of the country), which explains why they feel the election was stolen: when everyone you talk to agrees with you, it is easy to believe that the whole world agrees with you, not just the people you talk to.<br> <br>
Other interesting points: most people don't agree with Ahmadinejad's policies.  Quote:<p><div class="quote"><p>more than 70 percent of Iranians also expressed support for providing full access to weapons inspectors and a guarantee that Iran will not develop or possess nuclear weapons, in return for outside aid and investment</p></div><p>That warms my heart.  I really don't want Iran to get nuclear weapons (for purely selfish, self-preservation reasons. Don't respond to this saying, 'it is their right' because I don't care).  Apparently most people voted for Ahmadinejad not because they agree with his policies, but because they consider him to be a stronger negotiator, and more capable of getting favorable concessions from the US, China, and Russia.<br> <br>
If these results do turn out to be accurate, Obama should call and congratulate Ahmadinejad.  After all, there are things we can agree on: we want Iran to be a strong, capable, functioning member of international society, not one that tries to destroy it (of course, our views on how they should reach that goal are different, but we can work on that).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Washington Post did an independent poll [ washingtonpost.com ] before the election showing that the majority of the public DID support Ahmadinejad by nearly two thirds , even among Mousavi 's native ethnic group , the Azeri .
It seems that the only group that DID N'T support Ahmadinejad was the internet connected ( a small minority of the country ) , which explains why they feel the election was stolen : when everyone you talk to agrees with you , it is easy to believe that the whole world agrees with you , not just the people you talk to .
Other interesting points : most people do n't agree with Ahmadinejad 's policies .
Quote : more than 70 percent of Iranians also expressed support for providing full access to weapons inspectors and a guarantee that Iran will not develop or possess nuclear weapons , in return for outside aid and investmentThat warms my heart .
I really do n't want Iran to get nuclear weapons ( for purely selfish , self-preservation reasons .
Do n't respond to this saying , 'it is their right ' because I do n't care ) .
Apparently most people voted for Ahmadinejad not because they agree with his policies , but because they consider him to be a stronger negotiator , and more capable of getting favorable concessions from the US , China , and Russia .
If these results do turn out to be accurate , Obama should call and congratulate Ahmadinejad .
After all , there are things we can agree on : we want Iran to be a strong , capable , functioning member of international society , not one that tries to destroy it ( of course , our views on how they should reach that goal are different , but we can work on that ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Washington Post did an independent poll [washingtonpost.com] before the election showing that the majority of the public DID support Ahmadinejad by nearly two thirds, even among Mousavi's native ethnic group, the Azeri.
It seems that the only group that DIDN'T support Ahmadinejad was the internet connected (a small minority of the country), which explains why they feel the election was stolen: when everyone you talk to agrees with you, it is easy to believe that the whole world agrees with you, not just the people you talk to.
Other interesting points: most people don't agree with Ahmadinejad's policies.
Quote:more than 70 percent of Iranians also expressed support for providing full access to weapons inspectors and a guarantee that Iran will not develop or possess nuclear weapons, in return for outside aid and investmentThat warms my heart.
I really don't want Iran to get nuclear weapons (for purely selfish, self-preservation reasons.
Don't respond to this saying, 'it is their right' because I don't care).
Apparently most people voted for Ahmadinejad not because they agree with his policies, but because they consider him to be a stronger negotiator, and more capable of getting favorable concessions from the US, China, and Russia.
If these results do turn out to be accurate, Obama should call and congratulate Ahmadinejad.
After all, there are things we can agree on: we want Iran to be a strong, capable, functioning member of international society, not one that tries to destroy it (of course, our views on how they should reach that goal are different, but we can work on that).
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356837</id>
	<title>Re:If you know anything about statistics...</title>
	<author>Utopia Tree</author>
	<datestamp>1245165540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dewey Defeats Truman</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dewey Defeats Truman</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dewey Defeats Truman</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357811</id>
	<title>Re:The results match pre-election poll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245175380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First up, you haven't seen anything "happening in real life" - unless you're actually in Iran. What you see is a few Western stations pumping a few videos HARD on the regular "news" show. With 400 million US "invested" beforehand in support for the "Iranian opposition", you might want to think a little before granting so much credit to the new storyline - hint: you've been fooled before, pretty well, about 8 years ago.<br>No doubt, there is some violence and some discord, but just how much and how widespread - not so easy to determine.</p><p>Secondly, that survey also included some pretty hard hitting political and religious questions that responders would not have "felt free" to respond to honestly if they were under the kind of pressure you postulate that would make them say one thing and vote another.</p><p>You can be as anti-anything as you please, but you ought not cherry pick from that survey to suit your bias. The good question is: where are all the other pre-election surveys pointing the other way, which would justify the current protesters? Oh, there aren't any? Hmmmmm.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First up , you have n't seen anything " happening in real life " - unless you 're actually in Iran .
What you see is a few Western stations pumping a few videos HARD on the regular " news " show .
With 400 million US " invested " beforehand in support for the " Iranian opposition " , you might want to think a little before granting so much credit to the new storyline - hint : you 've been fooled before , pretty well , about 8 years ago.No doubt , there is some violence and some discord , but just how much and how widespread - not so easy to determine.Secondly , that survey also included some pretty hard hitting political and religious questions that responders would not have " felt free " to respond to honestly if they were under the kind of pressure you postulate that would make them say one thing and vote another.You can be as anti-anything as you please , but you ought not cherry pick from that survey to suit your bias .
The good question is : where are all the other pre-election surveys pointing the other way , which would justify the current protesters ?
Oh , there are n't any ?
Hmmmmm.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First up, you haven't seen anything "happening in real life" - unless you're actually in Iran.
What you see is a few Western stations pumping a few videos HARD on the regular "news" show.
With 400 million US "invested" beforehand in support for the "Iranian opposition", you might want to think a little before granting so much credit to the new storyline - hint: you've been fooled before, pretty well, about 8 years ago.No doubt, there is some violence and some discord, but just how much and how widespread - not so easy to determine.Secondly, that survey also included some pretty hard hitting political and religious questions that responders would not have "felt free" to respond to honestly if they were under the kind of pressure you postulate that would make them say one thing and vote another.You can be as anti-anything as you please, but you ought not cherry pick from that survey to suit your bias.
The good question is: where are all the other pre-election surveys pointing the other way, which would justify the current protesters?
Oh, there aren't any?
Hmmmmm.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355827</id>
	<title>Re:The results match pre-election poll</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1245158460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nuclear weapons are a fantastic peace maker in the hands of responsible government.  Your fear is of Iran, not nuclear weapons, and has more to do with the "they're different to us" Arab stereotyping than it does to any element of fact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuclear weapons are a fantastic peace maker in the hands of responsible government .
Your fear is of Iran , not nuclear weapons , and has more to do with the " they 're different to us " Arab stereotyping than it does to any element of fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nuclear weapons are a fantastic peace maker in the hands of responsible government.
Your fear is of Iran, not nuclear weapons, and has more to do with the "they're different to us" Arab stereotyping than it does to any element of fact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355517</id>
	<title>If you know anything about statistics...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245156600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...you know that a small random sample of the population tells you what the general population is like to a very high degree of certainty.  A random sample of 10 percent of population is virtually guaranteed to be within the margin of error of the general sample.  Now the early vote counts are not exactly random sample, but it's not unreasonable to announce the result of an election with a very small percentage of the vote counted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...you know that a small random sample of the population tells you what the general population is like to a very high degree of certainty .
A random sample of 10 percent of population is virtually guaranteed to be within the margin of error of the general sample .
Now the early vote counts are not exactly random sample , but it 's not unreasonable to announce the result of an election with a very small percentage of the vote counted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...you know that a small random sample of the population tells you what the general population is like to a very high degree of certainty.
A random sample of 10 percent of population is virtually guaranteed to be within the margin of error of the general sample.
Now the early vote counts are not exactly random sample, but it's not unreasonable to announce the result of an election with a very small percentage of the vote counted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356653</id>
	<title>They're also forbidden...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245164040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Nuclear weapons are a fantastic peace maker in the hands of responsible government.</i></p><p>According to a close friend who is a Muslim (of a different madab), they have been ruled as forbidden by the Shia version of Sharia law.  Variant on burning the enemy.  Big no-no.  (This would apply to using them in a mutual-assured-destruction threat as well.)</p><p>Presuming that's correct and the government is actually following the ruling, it would lend some credence to the claims that their nuclear program is just for power and other miscellaneous non-weapon tech.  (Which they have a right to - and the US has an obligation to AID them in pursuing - under the Nonproliferation Treaty.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuclear weapons are a fantastic peace maker in the hands of responsible government.According to a close friend who is a Muslim ( of a different madab ) , they have been ruled as forbidden by the Shia version of Sharia law .
Variant on burning the enemy .
Big no-no .
( This would apply to using them in a mutual-assured-destruction threat as well .
) Presuming that 's correct and the government is actually following the ruling , it would lend some credence to the claims that their nuclear program is just for power and other miscellaneous non-weapon tech .
( Which they have a right to - and the US has an obligation to AID them in pursuing - under the Nonproliferation Treaty .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nuclear weapons are a fantastic peace maker in the hands of responsible government.According to a close friend who is a Muslim (of a different madab), they have been ruled as forbidden by the Shia version of Sharia law.
Variant on burning the enemy.
Big no-no.
(This would apply to using them in a mutual-assured-destruction threat as well.
)Presuming that's correct and the government is actually following the ruling, it would lend some credence to the claims that their nuclear program is just for power and other miscellaneous non-weapon tech.
(Which they have a right to - and the US has an obligation to AID them in pursuing - under the Nonproliferation Treaty.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355827</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356907</id>
	<title>Re:Come on, It's Iran already</title>
	<author>Fractal Dice</author>
	<datestamp>1245166080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like the US has never spread FUD to undermine a regime they disapprove of.</p><p>Whatever the truth of the situation, I find that more and more news these days smells like propaganda.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like the US has never spread FUD to undermine a regime they disapprove of.Whatever the truth of the situation , I find that more and more news these days smells like propaganda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like the US has never spread FUD to undermine a regime they disapprove of.Whatever the truth of the situation, I find that more and more news these days smells like propaganda.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356105</id>
	<title>Re:The results match pre-election poll</title>
	<author>glwtta</author>
	<datestamp>1245160320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Your fear is of Iran, not nuclear weapons, and has more to do with the "they're different to us" <b>Arab</b> stereotyping than it does to any element of fact.</i>
<br> <br>
There's a non-trivial amount of irony in that admonition.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your fear is of Iran , not nuclear weapons , and has more to do with the " they 're different to us " Arab stereotyping than it does to any element of fact .
There 's a non-trivial amount of irony in that admonition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your fear is of Iran, not nuclear weapons, and has more to do with the "they're different to us" Arab stereotyping than it does to any element of fact.
There's a non-trivial amount of irony in that admonition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355827</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28362859</id>
	<title>Ya think?</title>
	<author>Impy the Impiuos Imp</author>
	<datestamp>1245260280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; "the US State Department has asked Twitter to delay system maintenance to prevent<br>&gt; cutting off Iranians who have been relying on the service during the post-election crisis."</p><p>Holy crap, someone thunk!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; " the US State Department has asked Twitter to delay system maintenance to prevent &gt; cutting off Iranians who have been relying on the service during the post-election crisis .
" Holy crap , someone thunk !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; "the US State Department has asked Twitter to delay system maintenance to prevent&gt; cutting off Iranians who have been relying on the service during the post-election crisis.
"Holy crap, someone thunk!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355841</id>
	<title>Re:The results match pre-election poll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245158520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That hardly warms my heart. They should not wish to develop nuclear arms because otherwise there will be war.  Not because they wantz moneyz now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That hardly warms my heart .
They should not wish to develop nuclear arms because otherwise there will be war .
Not because they wantz moneyz now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That hardly warms my heart.
They should not wish to develop nuclear arms because otherwise there will be war.
Not because they wantz moneyz now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28363903</id>
	<title>Re:If you know anything about statistics...</title>
	<author>BlackSnake112</author>
	<datestamp>1245264900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also remember that voting in Iran is not private. They watch you place your vote. Could intimidation be used? Well, what if they person standing there holding the big gun/knife moves their hands on said gun/knife if you start to mark the choice they do not like? I say yes, that was a very big possibility.</p><p>Would you trust 20 Iranian government approved counters? That could be the main issue. The supreme ruler wants person A. The election winner is person A. Surprise?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also remember that voting in Iran is not private .
They watch you place your vote .
Could intimidation be used ?
Well , what if they person standing there holding the big gun/knife moves their hands on said gun/knife if you start to mark the choice they do not like ?
I say yes , that was a very big possibility.Would you trust 20 Iranian government approved counters ?
That could be the main issue .
The supreme ruler wants person A. The election winner is person A. Surprise ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also remember that voting in Iran is not private.
They watch you place your vote.
Could intimidation be used?
Well, what if they person standing there holding the big gun/knife moves their hands on said gun/knife if you start to mark the choice they do not like?
I say yes, that was a very big possibility.Would you trust 20 Iranian government approved counters?
That could be the main issue.
The supreme ruler wants person A. The election winner is person A. Surprise?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355409</id>
	<title>more protests with no info...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245156000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>With all the people protesting out in the streets over there, I think it's quite annoying.  I wish they'd just settle down until they know there was fraud.  There is no reason to go party in the streets for days if there isn't proof of anything.  People keep saying they "know" the election was rigged, but no one can back it up.  I've seen 3 studies whose results all supported Ahmadinejad winning.  Meanwhile, all I've gotten from the protestors was variations of "wheeeewwwww!!!"  Come on guys, give me evidence!</htmltext>
<tokenext>With all the people protesting out in the streets over there , I think it 's quite annoying .
I wish they 'd just settle down until they know there was fraud .
There is no reason to go party in the streets for days if there is n't proof of anything .
People keep saying they " know " the election was rigged , but no one can back it up .
I 've seen 3 studies whose results all supported Ahmadinejad winning .
Meanwhile , all I 've gotten from the protestors was variations of " wheeeewwwww ! ! !
" Come on guys , give me evidence !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With all the people protesting out in the streets over there, I think it's quite annoying.
I wish they'd just settle down until they know there was fraud.
There is no reason to go party in the streets for days if there isn't proof of anything.
People keep saying they "know" the election was rigged, but no one can back it up.
I've seen 3 studies whose results all supported Ahmadinejad winning.
Meanwhile, all I've gotten from the protestors was variations of "wheeeewwwww!!!
"  Come on guys, give me evidence!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355921</id>
	<title>Re:It happens</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245159000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where the hell do you get your news, the Huffington Post?</p><p>Coleman vs. Franken is hardly an example of a fair recount.  The vote review committee was largely made up of Democrats which steered votes and were intent on accepting every ballot.  Ballots that were clearly in violation of what constituted as a legit ballot were still accepted, and their "intent" was derived to be for Franken.</p><p>iow, most of the "wtf are they voting for?" ballots were considered votes for Franken, not Coleman.  It's not flattering.  It's either the case that the committee steered the election based on party politics and abused their authority, or Democrats hugely and disproportionately do not have the ability to fill out a ballot and yet those ballots were counted despite violating election laws.</p><p>"It happens."</p><p>If you don't know how to identify or recognize fraud, how can you make such a claim?</p><p>It's a rare case when people are principled anymore these days, and when they are, they lose, leading to more disgusting, revolting partisanship.  US politics these days is about power, not legality or fairness, which makes voters feel less affinity to the results.  That's the one thing about the 2000 election that remains, whether you agree with the result or not or the process or not--it transformed how the parties approach elections, such that the election is only the first stage; if it's close, bitch to hell and back and pack the process in your favor.</p><p>Anyone shrewed enough will realize this favors the Democrats--ballots will be questioned in cities, which are overwhelmingly pro-Democratic party, and with the sheer population, questionable ballots will all go one way as decided by the Democratic dominated election committee, resulting overall in shifting a close election itself.</p><p>That's a few people "packing" the results.  Similar to what seems to have occurred in Iran.  They have their circle of clerics.  Here in the US we have city election review committees dominated by Democrats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where the hell do you get your news , the Huffington Post ? Coleman vs. Franken is hardly an example of a fair recount .
The vote review committee was largely made up of Democrats which steered votes and were intent on accepting every ballot .
Ballots that were clearly in violation of what constituted as a legit ballot were still accepted , and their " intent " was derived to be for Franken.iow , most of the " wtf are they voting for ?
" ballots were considered votes for Franken , not Coleman .
It 's not flattering .
It 's either the case that the committee steered the election based on party politics and abused their authority , or Democrats hugely and disproportionately do not have the ability to fill out a ballot and yet those ballots were counted despite violating election laws .
" It happens .
" If you do n't know how to identify or recognize fraud , how can you make such a claim ? It 's a rare case when people are principled anymore these days , and when they are , they lose , leading to more disgusting , revolting partisanship .
US politics these days is about power , not legality or fairness , which makes voters feel less affinity to the results .
That 's the one thing about the 2000 election that remains , whether you agree with the result or not or the process or not--it transformed how the parties approach elections , such that the election is only the first stage ; if it 's close , bitch to hell and back and pack the process in your favor.Anyone shrewed enough will realize this favors the Democrats--ballots will be questioned in cities , which are overwhelmingly pro-Democratic party , and with the sheer population , questionable ballots will all go one way as decided by the Democratic dominated election committee , resulting overall in shifting a close election itself.That 's a few people " packing " the results .
Similar to what seems to have occurred in Iran .
They have their circle of clerics .
Here in the US we have city election review committees dominated by Democrats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where the hell do you get your news, the Huffington Post?Coleman vs. Franken is hardly an example of a fair recount.
The vote review committee was largely made up of Democrats which steered votes and were intent on accepting every ballot.
Ballots that were clearly in violation of what constituted as a legit ballot were still accepted, and their "intent" was derived to be for Franken.iow, most of the "wtf are they voting for?
" ballots were considered votes for Franken, not Coleman.
It's not flattering.
It's either the case that the committee steered the election based on party politics and abused their authority, or Democrats hugely and disproportionately do not have the ability to fill out a ballot and yet those ballots were counted despite violating election laws.
"It happens.
"If you don't know how to identify or recognize fraud, how can you make such a claim?It's a rare case when people are principled anymore these days, and when they are, they lose, leading to more disgusting, revolting partisanship.
US politics these days is about power, not legality or fairness, which makes voters feel less affinity to the results.
That's the one thing about the 2000 election that remains, whether you agree with the result or not or the process or not--it transformed how the parties approach elections, such that the election is only the first stage; if it's close, bitch to hell and back and pack the process in your favor.Anyone shrewed enough will realize this favors the Democrats--ballots will be questioned in cities, which are overwhelmingly pro-Democratic party, and with the sheer population, questionable ballots will all go one way as decided by the Democratic dominated election committee, resulting overall in shifting a close election itself.That's a few people "packing" the results.
Similar to what seems to have occurred in Iran.
They have their circle of clerics.
Here in the US we have city election review committees dominated by Democrats.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356357</id>
	<title>If you know anything about collecting statistics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245162180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... you know how hard it is to engineer a truly "random" sample. Predictions can be made based on a representative sample, but you really shouldn't certify the results of an election until all the ballots are counted.</p><p>That being said, my suspicion is that even though there probably was some tampering, Ahmadinejad would have won a fair election anyway, just by a smaller margin. If the ruling council thought some reformer could beat their preferred candidate, then why would they let him run in the first place? What I've never figured out is why Khamanei wants somebody as provocative as Ahmadinejad for president anyway. If I were Iranian, I'd be somewhat embarrassed by his antics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... you know how hard it is to engineer a truly " random " sample .
Predictions can be made based on a representative sample , but you really should n't certify the results of an election until all the ballots are counted.That being said , my suspicion is that even though there probably was some tampering , Ahmadinejad would have won a fair election anyway , just by a smaller margin .
If the ruling council thought some reformer could beat their preferred candidate , then why would they let him run in the first place ?
What I 've never figured out is why Khamanei wants somebody as provocative as Ahmadinejad for president anyway .
If I were Iranian , I 'd be somewhat embarrassed by his antics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... you know how hard it is to engineer a truly "random" sample.
Predictions can be made based on a representative sample, but you really shouldn't certify the results of an election until all the ballots are counted.That being said, my suspicion is that even though there probably was some tampering, Ahmadinejad would have won a fair election anyway, just by a smaller margin.
If the ruling council thought some reformer could beat their preferred candidate, then why would they let him run in the first place?
What I've never figured out is why Khamanei wants somebody as provocative as Ahmadinejad for president anyway.
If I were Iranian, I'd be somewhat embarrassed by his antics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356139</id>
	<title>Re:The results match pre-election poll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245160500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The figures presented from the Washington Post poll <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/did-polling-predict-ahmadinejad-victory.html" title="fivethirtyeight.com" rel="nofollow">does not support</a> [fivethirtyeight.com] the conclusions reached in the poll.  For instance:<br>
&nbsp; </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, indeed, Ahmadinejad has more than twice as much of the vote as his next-closest rival, Mir Hossein Mousavi. But he also only has 33.8 percent of the total vote. Between them, indeed, Ahmadinejad and Mousavi only have 47.4 percent of the vote. Where does the rest of the vote go?</p></div><p>There were many many non-committal responses.  The article goes on to make the point that the great majority of "undecided" respondents to such polls in ideologically run repressive states are a consequence of a repressive regime, and that also casts into doubt the verity of the people responding in favor of those in power.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The figures presented from the Washington Post poll does not support [ fivethirtyeight.com ] the conclusions reached in the poll .
For instance :   Well , indeed , Ahmadinejad has more than twice as much of the vote as his next-closest rival , Mir Hossein Mousavi .
But he also only has 33.8 percent of the total vote .
Between them , indeed , Ahmadinejad and Mousavi only have 47.4 percent of the vote .
Where does the rest of the vote go ? There were many many non-committal responses .
The article goes on to make the point that the great majority of " undecided " respondents to such polls in ideologically run repressive states are a consequence of a repressive regime , and that also casts into doubt the verity of the people responding in favor of those in power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The figures presented from the Washington Post poll does not support [fivethirtyeight.com] the conclusions reached in the poll.
For instance:
  Well, indeed, Ahmadinejad has more than twice as much of the vote as his next-closest rival, Mir Hossein Mousavi.
But he also only has 33.8 percent of the total vote.
Between them, indeed, Ahmadinejad and Mousavi only have 47.4 percent of the vote.
Where does the rest of the vote go?There were many many non-committal responses.
The article goes on to make the point that the great majority of "undecided" respondents to such polls in ideologically run repressive states are a consequence of a repressive regime, and that also casts into doubt the verity of the people responding in favor of those in power.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356053</id>
	<title>Re:The results match pre-election poll</title>
	<author>Clandestine\_Blaze</author>
	<datestamp>1245159900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The poll was done by Terror Free Tomorrow: The Center for Public Opinion and New American Foundation. The Washington Post merely did an article on the findings from the poll.</p><p>From the <a href="http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT\%20Iran\%20Survey\%20Report\%200609.pdf" title="terrorfreetomorrow.org">survey</a> [terrorfreetomorrow.org] linked to in the article:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>TFT and KA use telephone interviewing instead of face-to-face research in Iran because of the political and social constraints inside Iran. Face-to-face interviewing in Iran can be difficult for interviewers who risk possible prosecution and imprisonment. Face-to-face interviewing also poses issues related to access to households and respondents due to social considerations. Access to female respondents across the Middle East can be challenging.</p></div><p>I'm not sure how much better over-the-phone polling is in Iran. Many in Iran are leery of being called by random strangers over the telephone asking them political questions. Whenever we call our relatives in Iran, we are extremely careful with what we say over the phone. More to the point, when you have a brutal regime and some random person calls and asks: "Who will you vote for in Presidential Elections?", I wouldn't be surprised if they answer in one way and vote in another.</p><p>I won't dismiss the findings of this survey outright - they <i>did</i> conduct a scientific polling, something that I haven't done. It's just difficult taking the survey very seriously when what you see happening in real life - thousands and thousands of bloodied protesters taking the streets and demanding change - and compare it with a polling sample of 1001 Iranians, as stated in their Methodology section on page 25 of the pdf document. I'm also thinking back to both the entrance and exit polls in the 2004 U.S. elections, where John Kerry was said to have won by a large margin, only to find that the opposite had happened.</p><p>I think it is evident that I am quite anti-Ahmadinejad and anti-Mullah and especially anti-Arab when it comes to my ancestral country. But I will concede that he won if more information is released and it points in favor of his victory.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The poll was done by Terror Free Tomorrow : The Center for Public Opinion and New American Foundation .
The Washington Post merely did an article on the findings from the poll.From the survey [ terrorfreetomorrow.org ] linked to in the article : TFT and KA use telephone interviewing instead of face-to-face research in Iran because of the political and social constraints inside Iran .
Face-to-face interviewing in Iran can be difficult for interviewers who risk possible prosecution and imprisonment .
Face-to-face interviewing also poses issues related to access to households and respondents due to social considerations .
Access to female respondents across the Middle East can be challenging.I 'm not sure how much better over-the-phone polling is in Iran .
Many in Iran are leery of being called by random strangers over the telephone asking them political questions .
Whenever we call our relatives in Iran , we are extremely careful with what we say over the phone .
More to the point , when you have a brutal regime and some random person calls and asks : " Who will you vote for in Presidential Elections ?
" , I would n't be surprised if they answer in one way and vote in another.I wo n't dismiss the findings of this survey outright - they did conduct a scientific polling , something that I have n't done .
It 's just difficult taking the survey very seriously when what you see happening in real life - thousands and thousands of bloodied protesters taking the streets and demanding change - and compare it with a polling sample of 1001 Iranians , as stated in their Methodology section on page 25 of the pdf document .
I 'm also thinking back to both the entrance and exit polls in the 2004 U.S. elections , where John Kerry was said to have won by a large margin , only to find that the opposite had happened.I think it is evident that I am quite anti-Ahmadinejad and anti-Mullah and especially anti-Arab when it comes to my ancestral country .
But I will concede that he won if more information is released and it points in favor of his victory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The poll was done by Terror Free Tomorrow: The Center for Public Opinion and New American Foundation.
The Washington Post merely did an article on the findings from the poll.From the survey [terrorfreetomorrow.org] linked to in the article:TFT and KA use telephone interviewing instead of face-to-face research in Iran because of the political and social constraints inside Iran.
Face-to-face interviewing in Iran can be difficult for interviewers who risk possible prosecution and imprisonment.
Face-to-face interviewing also poses issues related to access to households and respondents due to social considerations.
Access to female respondents across the Middle East can be challenging.I'm not sure how much better over-the-phone polling is in Iran.
Many in Iran are leery of being called by random strangers over the telephone asking them political questions.
Whenever we call our relatives in Iran, we are extremely careful with what we say over the phone.
More to the point, when you have a brutal regime and some random person calls and asks: "Who will you vote for in Presidential Elections?
", I wouldn't be surprised if they answer in one way and vote in another.I won't dismiss the findings of this survey outright - they did conduct a scientific polling, something that I haven't done.
It's just difficult taking the survey very seriously when what you see happening in real life - thousands and thousands of bloodied protesters taking the streets and demanding change - and compare it with a polling sample of 1001 Iranians, as stated in their Methodology section on page 25 of the pdf document.
I'm also thinking back to both the entrance and exit polls in the 2004 U.S. elections, where John Kerry was said to have won by a large margin, only to find that the opposite had happened.I think it is evident that I am quite anti-Ahmadinejad and anti-Mullah and especially anti-Arab when it comes to my ancestral country.
But I will concede that he won if more information is released and it points in favor of his victory.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355897</id>
	<title>Re:If you know anything about statistics...</title>
	<author>NP-Incomplete</author>
	<datestamp>1245158820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...you know that a small random sample of the population tells you what the general population is like to a very high degree of certainty.</p> </div><p>Statistics allows you to extrapolate results from a small sample set if, and only if, the the entire sample set follows a known statistical model.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...you know that a small random sample of the population tells you what the general population is like to a very high degree of certainty .
Statistics allows you to extrapolate results from a small sample set if , and only if , the the entire sample set follows a known statistical model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...you know that a small random sample of the population tells you what the general population is like to a very high degree of certainty.
Statistics allows you to extrapolate results from a small sample set if, and only if, the the entire sample set follows a known statistical model.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355461</id>
	<title>If the US can export democracy, Coke and burgers..</title>
	<author>Klistvud</author>
	<datestamp>1245156240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... why shouldn't it export economic collapses or fishy elections? Export is good for the economy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... why should n't it export economic collapses or fishy elections ?
Export is good for the economy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... why shouldn't it export economic collapses or fishy elections?
Export is good for the economy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28364201</id>
	<title>Re:Election irregularities</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1245266460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Given how little reliable information is available about the election most arguments are speculation, so analogies and generalizations are relevent until we have strong enough information to get some strong footing on all this. So far I've seen debates over the authenticity of previous elections, how accurate pre-election polls were, how fast you can count the votes, what to make of the high turnout, what demographics supported Mousavi, what groups are not being heard in media reports... I haven't seen a lot of reliable conclusions so I don't really know what to believe. He might not have the most informative post, but I found it insightful and relevent. Yes, comparing votes for Kerry to this election is a stretch by some means, but he doesn't make it look like more than it is.<br> <br>
As for how much evidence is needed, yes I understand it would be difficult if not impossible to prove the elections are rigged. What do you want people to do if they are rigged? If they should consider violent revolt, they have a responsibility to be certain that they are correct. Luckily, A'jad isn't an idiot, so if the Mousavi supporters consider violent revolt, if he can prove he was legitimately elected, he knows he must if he is to defuse the situation. Even short of violence, their protest is causing significant disruption, so they must be responsible and be certain they aren't causing trouble without reason. That said, things look fishy enough to me that I think it would be wrong for them to go home and let this go, but right now asking questions is the most they can really do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given how little reliable information is available about the election most arguments are speculation , so analogies and generalizations are relevent until we have strong enough information to get some strong footing on all this .
So far I 've seen debates over the authenticity of previous elections , how accurate pre-election polls were , how fast you can count the votes , what to make of the high turnout , what demographics supported Mousavi , what groups are not being heard in media reports... I have n't seen a lot of reliable conclusions so I do n't really know what to believe .
He might not have the most informative post , but I found it insightful and relevent .
Yes , comparing votes for Kerry to this election is a stretch by some means , but he does n't make it look like more than it is .
As for how much evidence is needed , yes I understand it would be difficult if not impossible to prove the elections are rigged .
What do you want people to do if they are rigged ?
If they should consider violent revolt , they have a responsibility to be certain that they are correct .
Luckily , A'jad is n't an idiot , so if the Mousavi supporters consider violent revolt , if he can prove he was legitimately elected , he knows he must if he is to defuse the situation .
Even short of violence , their protest is causing significant disruption , so they must be responsible and be certain they are n't causing trouble without reason .
That said , things look fishy enough to me that I think it would be wrong for them to go home and let this go , but right now asking questions is the most they can really do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given how little reliable information is available about the election most arguments are speculation, so analogies and generalizations are relevent until we have strong enough information to get some strong footing on all this.
So far I've seen debates over the authenticity of previous elections, how accurate pre-election polls were, how fast you can count the votes, what to make of the high turnout, what demographics supported Mousavi, what groups are not being heard in media reports... I haven't seen a lot of reliable conclusions so I don't really know what to believe.
He might not have the most informative post, but I found it insightful and relevent.
Yes, comparing votes for Kerry to this election is a stretch by some means, but he doesn't make it look like more than it is.
As for how much evidence is needed, yes I understand it would be difficult if not impossible to prove the elections are rigged.
What do you want people to do if they are rigged?
If they should consider violent revolt, they have a responsibility to be certain that they are correct.
Luckily, A'jad isn't an idiot, so if the Mousavi supporters consider violent revolt, if he can prove he was legitimately elected, he knows he must if he is to defuse the situation.
Even short of violence, their protest is causing significant disruption, so they must be responsible and be certain they aren't causing trouble without reason.
That said, things look fishy enough to me that I think it would be wrong for them to go home and let this go, but right now asking questions is the most they can really do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357849</id>
	<title>Re:The results match pre-election poll</title>
	<author>sesshomaru</author>
	<datestamp>1245175860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <em>
 I really don't want Iran to get nuclear weapons (for purely selfish, self-preservation reasons. Don't respond to this saying, 'it is their right' because I don't care).
</em></p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Oh, I agree, but then I'd prefer most countries with nuclear weapons didn't have them (and if I were living in fantasy land, all countries with nuclear weapons.  The order of magnitude is too great.  We really don't need people who can become Death, the Shatterer of Worlds in our only World, thanks.  See <i>Doctor Strangelove</i> for reasons why.).
</p><p>
Too bad we can't put that genie back in the bottle... and an Ahmadenijad regime will definitely press on.  Right now, while the United States is occupied elsewhere is their best chance to become a nuclear power.  It may be that the Grand Ayatollah understands this, and it's why he's decided to back Ahmadenijad.  Once a country is in the nuclear club, well, I haven't seen any kicked out of that clubhouse yet...  The idea that we can stop it with anything other than a full scale, total war is very naive.  Iran is not Iraq, even without nukes they are a big threat, especially with one of our armies conveniently next door.
</p><p>
Of course, Israel, which is scarily radicalizing under our noses, started that particular arms race by building their own nukes.
</p><p>
And before anyone says how great it is that Israel has nukes, let me be clear.  I'm an American.  I can argue over whether America should have nukes or not... but why on God's green earth would I ever want <em>any</em> other country (as in not-America) to have them?  If we, as Americans are worried about Israel, we can just station some of our own nuclear subs in that part of the world as a deterrant.  This whole idea that we should be thrilled that some other soveriegn country that we don't control has their own city killers never ceases to amaze me.  But then we do seem to be putting an increasing number of unmedicated lunatics on our TVs as "news" programs so what do I know.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't want Iran to get nuclear weapons ( for purely selfish , self-preservation reasons .
Do n't respond to this saying , 'it is their right ' because I do n't care ) .
Oh , I agree , but then I 'd prefer most countries with nuclear weapons did n't have them ( and if I were living in fantasy land , all countries with nuclear weapons .
The order of magnitude is too great .
We really do n't need people who can become Death , the Shatterer of Worlds in our only World , thanks .
See Doctor Strangelove for reasons why. ) .
Too bad we ca n't put that genie back in the bottle... and an Ahmadenijad regime will definitely press on .
Right now , while the United States is occupied elsewhere is their best chance to become a nuclear power .
It may be that the Grand Ayatollah understands this , and it 's why he 's decided to back Ahmadenijad .
Once a country is in the nuclear club , well , I have n't seen any kicked out of that clubhouse yet... The idea that we can stop it with anything other than a full scale , total war is very naive .
Iran is not Iraq , even without nukes they are a big threat , especially with one of our armies conveniently next door .
Of course , Israel , which is scarily radicalizing under our noses , started that particular arms race by building their own nukes .
And before anyone says how great it is that Israel has nukes , let me be clear .
I 'm an American .
I can argue over whether America should have nukes or not... but why on God 's green earth would I ever want any other country ( as in not-America ) to have them ?
If we , as Americans are worried about Israel , we can just station some of our own nuclear subs in that part of the world as a deterrant .
This whole idea that we should be thrilled that some other soveriegn country that we do n't control has their own city killers never ceases to amaze me .
But then we do seem to be putting an increasing number of unmedicated lunatics on our TVs as " news " programs so what do I know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 
 I really don't want Iran to get nuclear weapons (for purely selfish, self-preservation reasons.
Don't respond to this saying, 'it is their right' because I don't care).
Oh, I agree, but then I'd prefer most countries with nuclear weapons didn't have them (and if I were living in fantasy land, all countries with nuclear weapons.
The order of magnitude is too great.
We really don't need people who can become Death, the Shatterer of Worlds in our only World, thanks.
See Doctor Strangelove for reasons why.).
Too bad we can't put that genie back in the bottle... and an Ahmadenijad regime will definitely press on.
Right now, while the United States is occupied elsewhere is their best chance to become a nuclear power.
It may be that the Grand Ayatollah understands this, and it's why he's decided to back Ahmadenijad.
Once a country is in the nuclear club, well, I haven't seen any kicked out of that clubhouse yet...  The idea that we can stop it with anything other than a full scale, total war is very naive.
Iran is not Iraq, even without nukes they are a big threat, especially with one of our armies conveniently next door.
Of course, Israel, which is scarily radicalizing under our noses, started that particular arms race by building their own nukes.
And before anyone says how great it is that Israel has nukes, let me be clear.
I'm an American.
I can argue over whether America should have nukes or not... but why on God's green earth would I ever want any other country (as in not-America) to have them?
If we, as Americans are worried about Israel, we can just station some of our own nuclear subs in that part of the world as a deterrant.
This whole idea that we should be thrilled that some other soveriegn country that we don't control has their own city killers never ceases to amaze me.
But then we do seem to be putting an increasing number of unmedicated lunatics on our TVs as "news" programs so what do I know.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355273</id>
	<title>I was suspicious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245155280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>... when Barack Obama congratulated Ahmadinejad a week early.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... when Barack Obama congratulated Ahmadinejad a week early .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... when Barack Obama congratulated Ahmadinejad a week early.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355687</id>
	<title>Proxy</title>
	<author>scarolan</author>
	<datestamp>1245157620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did go ahead and set up a squid proxy - how do I get the IP address to Iranians who need it without the government seeing it?  I've asked this question on twitter several times over the last day, and my messages seem to just get drowned out by all the other information flooding in.  Is there a trusted source who can pass the server address on to Iranian users who need it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did go ahead and set up a squid proxy - how do I get the IP address to Iranians who need it without the government seeing it ?
I 've asked this question on twitter several times over the last day , and my messages seem to just get drowned out by all the other information flooding in .
Is there a trusted source who can pass the server address on to Iranian users who need it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did go ahead and set up a squid proxy - how do I get the IP address to Iranians who need it without the government seeing it?
I've asked this question on twitter several times over the last day, and my messages seem to just get drowned out by all the other information flooding in.
Is there a trusted source who can pass the server address on to Iranian users who need it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357003</id>
	<title>Re:The problem of time</title>
	<author>mevets</author>
	<datestamp>1245166800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well we agree on one thing - ( He won the same way Bush won twice, for the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. humour impaired )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well we agree on one thing - ( He won the same way Bush won twice , for the / .
humour impaired )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well we agree on one thing - ( He won the same way Bush won twice, for the /.
humour impaired )</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28371213</id>
	<title>Shahram</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245319800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I checked the data which the report is based on.<br>The Ministry of Internal Affairs has reconciled the data,<br>So calculations should be conducted based on corrected data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I checked the data which the report is based on.The Ministry of Internal Affairs has reconciled the data,So calculations should be conducted based on corrected data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I checked the data which the report is based on.The Ministry of Internal Affairs has reconciled the data,So calculations should be conducted based on corrected data.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355303</id>
	<title>The problem of time</title>
	<author>JoshuaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1245155400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are a lot of issues with the data. But even before one gets to the statistical anomalies one has the basic problem of time. Iran uses paper ballots. In the past elections it has taken at least three days for Iran to count the votes. In this case, if the results are to be believed it took a matter of hours. That's just not plausible. Even if there were zero apparent stat problems, this would still be a massive red flag.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a lot of issues with the data .
But even before one gets to the statistical anomalies one has the basic problem of time .
Iran uses paper ballots .
In the past elections it has taken at least three days for Iran to count the votes .
In this case , if the results are to be believed it took a matter of hours .
That 's just not plausible .
Even if there were zero apparent stat problems , this would still be a massive red flag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a lot of issues with the data.
But even before one gets to the statistical anomalies one has the basic problem of time.
Iran uses paper ballots.
In the past elections it has taken at least three days for Iran to count the votes.
In this case, if the results are to be believed it took a matter of hours.
That's just not plausible.
Even if there were zero apparent stat problems, this would still be a massive red flag.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357935</id>
	<title>Re:Election irregularities</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245176760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>(and yeah, I know I'll get some conspiracy nut reply to that with an essay.)</p></div></blockquote><p>Mod -1: ad hominem</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( and yeah , I know I 'll get some conspiracy nut reply to that with an essay .
) Mod -1 : ad hominem</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(and yeah, I know I'll get some conspiracy nut reply to that with an essay.
)Mod -1: ad hominem
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28360735</id>
	<title>Re:The results match pre-election poll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245249420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Care to explain how they get to be a strong and fully functioning member of international society, without access to nuclear power?</p><p>They're trying to be a strong, independent and functioning nation, that doesn't have to rely on outside forces for survival - the US, UK and the rest of the complainants don't want them to be. They want them subservient and weak. You want them subservient and weak  - most people on here will fully admit thats exactly what they want, as they're scared of what Iran will do if its strong.</p><p>Which route would you prefer? Iran as a functioning member of a society that is made up of powerful wealthy countries, Or Iran as a weak and 'rogue' state?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Care to explain how they get to be a strong and fully functioning member of international society , without access to nuclear power ? They 're trying to be a strong , independent and functioning nation , that does n't have to rely on outside forces for survival - the US , UK and the rest of the complainants do n't want them to be .
They want them subservient and weak .
You want them subservient and weak - most people on here will fully admit thats exactly what they want , as they 're scared of what Iran will do if its strong.Which route would you prefer ?
Iran as a functioning member of a society that is made up of powerful wealthy countries , Or Iran as a weak and 'rogue ' state ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Care to explain how they get to be a strong and fully functioning member of international society, without access to nuclear power?They're trying to be a strong, independent and functioning nation, that doesn't have to rely on outside forces for survival - the US, UK and the rest of the complainants don't want them to be.
They want them subservient and weak.
You want them subservient and weak  - most people on here will fully admit thats exactly what they want, as they're scared of what Iran will do if its strong.Which route would you prefer?
Iran as a functioning member of a society that is made up of powerful wealthy countries, Or Iran as a weak and 'rogue' state?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356193</id>
	<title>Re:Proxy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245160860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.boingboing.net/2009/06/16/cyberwar-guide-for-i.html has information about passing proxy data. Cory Doctorow, as obviously shown in his teenager targeted book "Little Brother" is a master of cyber protesting and fighting the man. Proxies just aren't that useful if you simply cut off Internet access with a shovel. The real world works in the same way it did a thousand years ago, twitter or no.<br>Remember Remember, the Naieveity of Novemember, the way people are dragged about and shot. I see no reason your ignorance should not be point'd out.  http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/security.png</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.boingboing.net/2009/06/16/cyberwar-guide-for-i.html has information about passing proxy data .
Cory Doctorow , as obviously shown in his teenager targeted book " Little Brother " is a master of cyber protesting and fighting the man .
Proxies just are n't that useful if you simply cut off Internet access with a shovel .
The real world works in the same way it did a thousand years ago , twitter or no.Remember Remember , the Naieveity of Novemember , the way people are dragged about and shot .
I see no reason your ignorance should not be point 'd out .
http : //imgs.xkcd.com/comics/security.png</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.boingboing.net/2009/06/16/cyberwar-guide-for-i.html has information about passing proxy data.
Cory Doctorow, as obviously shown in his teenager targeted book "Little Brother" is a master of cyber protesting and fighting the man.
Proxies just aren't that useful if you simply cut off Internet access with a shovel.
The real world works in the same way it did a thousand years ago, twitter or no.Remember Remember, the Naieveity of Novemember, the way people are dragged about and shot.
I see no reason your ignorance should not be point'd out.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/security.png</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356453</id>
	<title>Re:The results match pre-election poll</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1245162840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It might have something to do with the respect given to any country that actively uses stoning and beheading as a way to enforce laws.  Different from the West?  Heck yes!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It might have something to do with the respect given to any country that actively uses stoning and beheading as a way to enforce laws .
Different from the West ?
Heck yes !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It might have something to do with the respect given to any country that actively uses stoning and beheading as a way to enforce laws.
Different from the West?
Heck yes!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355827</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355999</id>
	<title>Re:The results match pre-election poll</title>
	<author>Zordak</author>
	<datestamp>1245159480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the majority of the public DID support Ahmadinejad by nearly two thirds, even among Mousavi's native ethnic group, the Azeri.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Other interesting points: most people don't agree with Ahmadinejad's policies.</p></div><p>That's really not surprising.  Look at the U.S.  Pre-election polling gave the Democrat-controlled Congress single-digit approval ratings, and then the people voted heavily in favor of putting MORE Democrats in Congress.  Let's face it.  People are stupid.  Elections are about building the biggest personality cult, not about policies.  In 1994, the people knew that "Democrats are bad."  So they voted for Republicans, despite having no idea what those Republicans' policies were.  In 2008, the people knew that "Republicans are bad."  So they voted for Democrats, despite having no idea what those Democrats' policies were, and despite the fact that the Democrats had controlled the House for 2 years, and the people <em>already didn't like what the House was doing</em>.  But Republicans were bad in 2008, so it was obviously their fault that Congress was bad, despite the fact that they didn't control it.  The only difference between the 1994 Democrats that the people emphatically booted out and the 2008 Democrats that they emphatically cheered in was the year.  The only difference between the 2008 Republicans that the people emphatically booted out and the 20xx Republicans that they will emphatically cheer in (yes, it will happen) is the year.</p><p>All those Iranians who voted for Ahmadinejad and also wanted full access for inspectors and no nuclear weapons---I'm betting they just <em>assumed</em> that he agreed with them because they liked him.  He's strong and a good leader, so he must want the things I want.  Just like Barack Obama could stand up tomorrow and say, "I'm in favor of clubbing baby seals," and thousands of tree huggers would nod their heads and say, "Yes, we should protect the baby seals," because he's just so darn charismatic and likable, they assume that he wants what they want.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the majority of the public DID support Ahmadinejad by nearly two thirds , even among Mousavi 's native ethnic group , the Azeri .
... Other interesting points : most people do n't agree with Ahmadinejad 's policies.That 's really not surprising .
Look at the U.S. Pre-election polling gave the Democrat-controlled Congress single-digit approval ratings , and then the people voted heavily in favor of putting MORE Democrats in Congress .
Let 's face it .
People are stupid .
Elections are about building the biggest personality cult , not about policies .
In 1994 , the people knew that " Democrats are bad .
" So they voted for Republicans , despite having no idea what those Republicans ' policies were .
In 2008 , the people knew that " Republicans are bad .
" So they voted for Democrats , despite having no idea what those Democrats ' policies were , and despite the fact that the Democrats had controlled the House for 2 years , and the people already did n't like what the House was doing .
But Republicans were bad in 2008 , so it was obviously their fault that Congress was bad , despite the fact that they did n't control it .
The only difference between the 1994 Democrats that the people emphatically booted out and the 2008 Democrats that they emphatically cheered in was the year .
The only difference between the 2008 Republicans that the people emphatically booted out and the 20xx Republicans that they will emphatically cheer in ( yes , it will happen ) is the year.All those Iranians who voted for Ahmadinejad and also wanted full access for inspectors and no nuclear weapons---I 'm betting they just assumed that he agreed with them because they liked him .
He 's strong and a good leader , so he must want the things I want .
Just like Barack Obama could stand up tomorrow and say , " I 'm in favor of clubbing baby seals , " and thousands of tree huggers would nod their heads and say , " Yes , we should protect the baby seals , " because he 's just so darn charismatic and likable , they assume that he wants what they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the majority of the public DID support Ahmadinejad by nearly two thirds, even among Mousavi's native ethnic group, the Azeri.
... Other interesting points: most people don't agree with Ahmadinejad's policies.That's really not surprising.
Look at the U.S.  Pre-election polling gave the Democrat-controlled Congress single-digit approval ratings, and then the people voted heavily in favor of putting MORE Democrats in Congress.
Let's face it.
People are stupid.
Elections are about building the biggest personality cult, not about policies.
In 1994, the people knew that "Democrats are bad.
"  So they voted for Republicans, despite having no idea what those Republicans' policies were.
In 2008, the people knew that "Republicans are bad.
"  So they voted for Democrats, despite having no idea what those Democrats' policies were, and despite the fact that the Democrats had controlled the House for 2 years, and the people already didn't like what the House was doing.
But Republicans were bad in 2008, so it was obviously their fault that Congress was bad, despite the fact that they didn't control it.
The only difference between the 1994 Democrats that the people emphatically booted out and the 2008 Democrats that they emphatically cheered in was the year.
The only difference between the 2008 Republicans that the people emphatically booted out and the 20xx Republicans that they will emphatically cheer in (yes, it will happen) is the year.All those Iranians who voted for Ahmadinejad and also wanted full access for inspectors and no nuclear weapons---I'm betting they just assumed that he agreed with them because they liked him.
He's strong and a good leader, so he must want the things I want.
Just like Barack Obama could stand up tomorrow and say, "I'm in favor of clubbing baby seals," and thousands of tree huggers would nod their heads and say, "Yes, we should protect the baby seals," because he's just so darn charismatic and likable, they assume that he wants what they want.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28362109</id>
	<title>Uhm, missing the obvious here</title>
	<author>tarlss</author>
	<datestamp>1245256740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uhmmm...to the trolls saying it's possible that Ahmedinejad's win was possibly legitimate, did you not see all those people in the streets? You know, the ones getting shot in the face and tear gassed? This is the biggest protest in Iranian history since the 1979 revolution. Just because you're all fired up with white liberal guilt doesn't mean the rest of us don't see what's going on.
<p>
These liberals lost the 2004 elections fair and square to Ahmedinejad, and were he to have won fairly, they wouldn't be out on the streets risking DEATH. Snarky mathematical countermands aren't going to silence them anymore than gunfire. Comparisons to Bush's wins in 2004 only highlight your white liberal guilt...just because the US fairly elected someone unpopular, doesn't mean that things are alright in Iran. Let's not forget that Bush neither had the Basij intimidating voters, and that there was no direct, explicit power structure in charge of him and counting the votes.
</p><p>
Honestly? It doesn't even matter now. The Iranian people have seen what their government does to its' own citizens. It's not a third world country. Even farmers and merchantmen can see that shooting and beating nonviolent protestors is wrong. Bush may have done a lot of bad things, but he never turned his dogs on American citizens enmasse like this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhmmm...to the trolls saying it 's possible that Ahmedinejad 's win was possibly legitimate , did you not see all those people in the streets ?
You know , the ones getting shot in the face and tear gassed ?
This is the biggest protest in Iranian history since the 1979 revolution .
Just because you 're all fired up with white liberal guilt does n't mean the rest of us do n't see what 's going on .
These liberals lost the 2004 elections fair and square to Ahmedinejad , and were he to have won fairly , they would n't be out on the streets risking DEATH .
Snarky mathematical countermands are n't going to silence them anymore than gunfire .
Comparisons to Bush 's wins in 2004 only highlight your white liberal guilt...just because the US fairly elected someone unpopular , does n't mean that things are alright in Iran .
Let 's not forget that Bush neither had the Basij intimidating voters , and that there was no direct , explicit power structure in charge of him and counting the votes .
Honestly ? It does n't even matter now .
The Iranian people have seen what their government does to its ' own citizens .
It 's not a third world country .
Even farmers and merchantmen can see that shooting and beating nonviolent protestors is wrong .
Bush may have done a lot of bad things , but he never turned his dogs on American citizens enmasse like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhmmm...to the trolls saying it's possible that Ahmedinejad's win was possibly legitimate, did you not see all those people in the streets?
You know, the ones getting shot in the face and tear gassed?
This is the biggest protest in Iranian history since the 1979 revolution.
Just because you're all fired up with white liberal guilt doesn't mean the rest of us don't see what's going on.
These liberals lost the 2004 elections fair and square to Ahmedinejad, and were he to have won fairly, they wouldn't be out on the streets risking DEATH.
Snarky mathematical countermands aren't going to silence them anymore than gunfire.
Comparisons to Bush's wins in 2004 only highlight your white liberal guilt...just because the US fairly elected someone unpopular, doesn't mean that things are alright in Iran.
Let's not forget that Bush neither had the Basij intimidating voters, and that there was no direct, explicit power structure in charge of him and counting the votes.
Honestly? It doesn't even matter now.
The Iranian people have seen what their government does to its' own citizens.
It's not a third world country.
Even farmers and merchantmen can see that shooting and beating nonviolent protestors is wrong.
Bush may have done a lot of bad things, but he never turned his dogs on American citizens enmasse like this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28358005</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter whether the election was rigg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245177540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can I speak completely honestly about this?</p><p>I don't know if he stole the election or not. In truth, I feel he did. However, and this is important, there's also the possibility he didn't.</p><p>If a country had 10,000 people and we saw a crowd of 1,000 protesting the results, that would be an impressive looking crowd but would only be 10\% of the people. If the country had 100,000 people with 1,000 protesters, again, impressive but a small percent.</p><p>Just because we as America and...y'know a fair amount of the world don't like the results doesn't mean we can change it if it turns out its true. The moment we go in because the democracy that happened isn't the democracy that we wanted or that a visible group wanted doesn't mean that we have the right to go in and "fix" it no matter how much we'd want to.</p><p>Let me reiterate. I do think the election was rigged. But on the off chance it wasn't, we'll have to accept it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can I speak completely honestly about this ? I do n't know if he stole the election or not .
In truth , I feel he did .
However , and this is important , there 's also the possibility he did n't.If a country had 10,000 people and we saw a crowd of 1,000 protesting the results , that would be an impressive looking crowd but would only be 10 \ % of the people .
If the country had 100,000 people with 1,000 protesters , again , impressive but a small percent.Just because we as America and...y'know a fair amount of the world do n't like the results does n't mean we can change it if it turns out its true .
The moment we go in because the democracy that happened is n't the democracy that we wanted or that a visible group wanted does n't mean that we have the right to go in and " fix " it no matter how much we 'd want to.Let me reiterate .
I do think the election was rigged .
But on the off chance it was n't , we 'll have to accept it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can I speak completely honestly about this?I don't know if he stole the election or not.
In truth, I feel he did.
However, and this is important, there's also the possibility he didn't.If a country had 10,000 people and we saw a crowd of 1,000 protesting the results, that would be an impressive looking crowd but would only be 10\% of the people.
If the country had 100,000 people with 1,000 protesters, again, impressive but a small percent.Just because we as America and...y'know a fair amount of the world don't like the results doesn't mean we can change it if it turns out its true.
The moment we go in because the democracy that happened isn't the democracy that we wanted or that a visible group wanted doesn't mean that we have the right to go in and "fix" it no matter how much we'd want to.Let me reiterate.
I do think the election was rigged.
But on the off chance it wasn't, we'll have to accept it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28366979</id>
	<title>There is even more statistical prove of fraud..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245236520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The German News heise.de (http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Geheimnisvolle-Statistik-Hinweise-auf-Wahlfaelschung-im-Iran--/meldung/140589) wrote about Boudewijn F. Roukema, who used the Benford Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford\_law) to analyse the results and found that the null-hypothesis of no fraud could be rejected by 99\% (p &lt; 0.063).. in other words, it definitiv was fraud... read his paper on http://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.2789v1.pdf including link to the datasheet and the octave script for the calculs</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The German News heise.de ( http : //www.heise.de/newsticker/Geheimnisvolle-Statistik-Hinweise-auf-Wahlfaelschung-im-Iran--/meldung/140589 ) wrote about Boudewijn F. Roukema , who used the Benford Law ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford \ _law ) to analyse the results and found that the null-hypothesis of no fraud could be rejected by 99 \ % ( p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The German News heise.de (http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Geheimnisvolle-Statistik-Hinweise-auf-Wahlfaelschung-im-Iran--/meldung/140589) wrote about Boudewijn F. Roukema, who used the Benford Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford\_law) to analyse the results and found that the null-hypothesis of no fraud could be rejected by 99\% (p </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356187</id>
	<title>Grownups agree; Iran re-elected Ahmadinejad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245160800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2009/06/western\_misconception\_iran\_rea.html" title="realclearworld.com" rel="nofollow">Indulging hysteria is fun.</a> [realclearworld.com]</p><p>Ahmadinejad was not unpopular.  He has the support of common Iranians.  The world is not fair.</p><p><a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23745.html" title="politico.com" rel="nofollow">Get over it.</a> [politico.com]</p><p>The EU did not hesitate to acknowledge his victory; they appreciate Ahmadinejad playing foil to the US.</p><p>Western yap about counting ballots has no credibility.  Canada copes with a similar number of paper ballots with each election; initial counts require only hours.</p><p>Iran is not a liberal democracy.  Iran is in no great hurry to become a liberal democracy.  The degree to which this confuses you is proportional to your own ignorance.</p><p>Are you also certain of your indifference to Iran's nukes?  Think hard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indulging hysteria is fun .
[ realclearworld.com ] Ahmadinejad was not unpopular .
He has the support of common Iranians .
The world is not fair.Get over it .
[ politico.com ] The EU did not hesitate to acknowledge his victory ; they appreciate Ahmadinejad playing foil to the US.Western yap about counting ballots has no credibility .
Canada copes with a similar number of paper ballots with each election ; initial counts require only hours.Iran is not a liberal democracy .
Iran is in no great hurry to become a liberal democracy .
The degree to which this confuses you is proportional to your own ignorance.Are you also certain of your indifference to Iran 's nukes ?
Think hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indulging hysteria is fun.
[realclearworld.com]Ahmadinejad was not unpopular.
He has the support of common Iranians.
The world is not fair.Get over it.
[politico.com]The EU did not hesitate to acknowledge his victory; they appreciate Ahmadinejad playing foil to the US.Western yap about counting ballots has no credibility.
Canada copes with a similar number of paper ballots with each election; initial counts require only hours.Iran is not a liberal democracy.
Iran is in no great hurry to become a liberal democracy.
The degree to which this confuses you is proportional to your own ignorance.Are you also certain of your indifference to Iran's nukes?
Think hard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357405</id>
	<title>Re:ProxyBox Virtual Appliance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245170460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For any Iranian looking for a proxy, there's one here:
208.86.95.26

running on ports: 3128
, 1234
, 80
, 443
, 143
, 110

It's ACLed to only accept traffic from Iranian IPs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For any Iranian looking for a proxy , there 's one here : 208.86.95.26 running on ports : 3128 , 1234 , 80 , 443 , 143 , 110 It 's ACLed to only accept traffic from Iranian IPs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For any Iranian looking for a proxy, there's one here:
208.86.95.26

running on ports: 3128
, 1234
, 80
, 443
, 143
, 110

It's ACLed to only accept traffic from Iranian IPs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355731</id>
	<title>What about a better solution to counter censorship</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245157860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about using some P2P protocol with encription as the core for a new kind of Usenet specically aimed for privacy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about using some P2P protocol with encription as the core for a new kind of Usenet specically aimed for privacy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about using some P2P protocol with encription as the core for a new kind of Usenet specically aimed for privacy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28362435</id>
	<title>Swift to Judge</title>
	<author>BrightSpark</author>
	<datestamp>1245258180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Regardless of Iran's internal political system and electoral fixing and judging it unworthy, we must look in our own back yard before hefting those bricks of implaccable disbelief. I recall an hung election not long back in the good old US of A. where thousands of poor and downtrodden were scrubbed off the electoral rolls with the click of a contractors keyboard. Then there were all those discrepencies in Florida, Fox declaring victory for Gore, only to be told "recant, recant". Just happened to be in a state run by the soon-to-be-president's brother. Perhaps these things are OK for mature countries in the land of the free.

Hmm.. I had better check my English Dictionary and see if there was another entry under "democracy" that I may have missed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Regardless of Iran 's internal political system and electoral fixing and judging it unworthy , we must look in our own back yard before hefting those bricks of implaccable disbelief .
I recall an hung election not long back in the good old US of A. where thousands of poor and downtrodden were scrubbed off the electoral rolls with the click of a contractors keyboard .
Then there were all those discrepencies in Florida , Fox declaring victory for Gore , only to be told " recant , recant " .
Just happened to be in a state run by the soon-to-be-president 's brother .
Perhaps these things are OK for mature countries in the land of the free .
Hmm.. I had better check my English Dictionary and see if there was another entry under " democracy " that I may have missed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regardless of Iran's internal political system and electoral fixing and judging it unworthy, we must look in our own back yard before hefting those bricks of implaccable disbelief.
I recall an hung election not long back in the good old US of A. where thousands of poor and downtrodden were scrubbed off the electoral rolls with the click of a contractors keyboard.
Then there were all those discrepencies in Florida, Fox declaring victory for Gore, only to be told "recant, recant".
Just happened to be in a state run by the soon-to-be-president's brother.
Perhaps these things are OK for mature countries in the land of the free.
Hmm.. I had better check my English Dictionary and see if there was another entry under "democracy" that I may have missed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28365781</id>
	<title>That's all about Hashemi Rafsanjani</title>
	<author>mebrahim</author>
	<datestamp>1245230580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First of all let me tell you I'm Iranian and I live in Tehran.<p>
I guess I know why a great deal of new votes are in favor of Ahmadinejad.</p><p>For years many of Iranians have been growing hatred against Hashemi Rafsanjani's family in their hearts. They thought all the government is doing the same injustice to them, so some people didn't vote at all.</p><p>Family of Hashemi was too powerful to be stopped, so no official effort against them happened until 10th election when Ahmadinejad directly attacked Hashemi's family on TV. Those who didn't vote because they thought the whole government is pirate (!) now voted for Ahmadinejad hoping he will stop Hashemi's family and the like. I think this was a very important factor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all let me tell you I 'm Iranian and I live in Tehran .
I guess I know why a great deal of new votes are in favor of Ahmadinejad.For years many of Iranians have been growing hatred against Hashemi Rafsanjani 's family in their hearts .
They thought all the government is doing the same injustice to them , so some people did n't vote at all.Family of Hashemi was too powerful to be stopped , so no official effort against them happened until 10th election when Ahmadinejad directly attacked Hashemi 's family on TV .
Those who did n't vote because they thought the whole government is pirate ( !
) now voted for Ahmadinejad hoping he will stop Hashemi 's family and the like .
I think this was a very important factor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all let me tell you I'm Iranian and I live in Tehran.
I guess I know why a great deal of new votes are in favor of Ahmadinejad.For years many of Iranians have been growing hatred against Hashemi Rafsanjani's family in their hearts.
They thought all the government is doing the same injustice to them, so some people didn't vote at all.Family of Hashemi was too powerful to be stopped, so no official effort against them happened until 10th election when Ahmadinejad directly attacked Hashemi's family on TV.
Those who didn't vote because they thought the whole government is pirate (!
) now voted for Ahmadinejad hoping he will stop Hashemi's family and the like.
I think this was a very important factor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355295</id>
	<title>Camel Jockeys are Liars and Cheats??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245155400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>News at 11.</p><p>Srsly...anybody think those rag heads give a shit?</p><p>Wake me when they progress past their 6th century mentalities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>News at 11.Srsly...anybody think those rag heads give a shit ? Wake me when they progress past their 6th century mentalities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>News at 11.Srsly...anybody think those rag heads give a shit?Wake me when they progress past their 6th century mentalities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28385947</id>
	<title>Re:The results match pre-election poll</title>
	<author>Eli Gottlieb</author>
	<datestamp>1245352560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think it is evident that I am quite anti-Ahmadinejad and anti-Mullah and especially anti-Arab when it comes to my ancestral country.</p></div><p>I'm sorry, normally I'm quite well-informed on ways in which Arab forces smugly try to steal control of the entire Middle East, but what are they up to in Iran?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it is evident that I am quite anti-Ahmadinejad and anti-Mullah and especially anti-Arab when it comes to my ancestral country.I 'm sorry , normally I 'm quite well-informed on ways in which Arab forces smugly try to steal control of the entire Middle East , but what are they up to in Iran ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it is evident that I am quite anti-Ahmadinejad and anti-Mullah and especially anti-Arab when it comes to my ancestral country.I'm sorry, normally I'm quite well-informed on ways in which Arab forces smugly try to steal control of the entire Middle East, but what are they up to in Iran?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356695</id>
	<title>Re:The results match pre-election poll</title>
	<author>davevr</author>
	<datestamp>1245164340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have to use the American definition of "Arab", which is "anyone who practices Islam".   Imagine how confused they get in Malaysia!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to use the American definition of " Arab " , which is " anyone who practices Islam " .
Imagine how confused they get in Malaysia !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to use the American definition of "Arab", which is "anyone who practices Islam".
Imagine how confused they get in Malaysia!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355525</id>
	<title>ProxyBox Virtual Appliance</title>
	<author>0100010001010011</author>
	<datestamp>1245156660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.exstatic.org/proxybox/" title="exstatic.org">Mirror 1</a> [exstatic.org]<br><a href="http://128.210.109.29:3000/" title="128.210.109.29">Mirror 2</a> [128.210.109.29]</p><p>Proxies:<br>Squid installed and listening on ports: 7, 13, 53, 993, 995, 3128<br>Polipo installed and listening on port: 8123. Polipo is routed through Tor.<br>Tor: port 9050 (a socks5 proxy)<br>Ziproxy: Port 8080 (good for low bandwidth connections. It recompress images &amp; text.<br>Socat: Must be run manually, but listens on port 443 and routes through Squid.</p><p>SSH enabled, listening on ports 22,80,2222,22222<br>2 Users: root:#iran and iran:election. If you enable ssh to the world, change the root password (passwd). This should enable ssh tunneling.<br>-<br>I created this for people on Fark who were having problems with squid. Everyone here shouldn't have a problem. It's a bare bones (netinst) debian install with all the above installed and setup.</p><p>I did NOT put ACLs in because there are reports here: <a href="http://iran.sharearchy.com/" title="sharearchy.com">http://iran.sharearchy.com/</a> [sharearchy.com] that the ACL list is actually blocking some people in Iran.</p><p>And could one of the mods please change to the coral cache of Austin's website? He's already getting DDoS'd by Iran all this morning. Slashdot isn't going to help anything.</p><p>If any<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers would like to help make it smaller, better, faster (VPN?), jjarvis98 at gmail.com</p><p>And you're free to inspect it to make sure I'm not trying to r00t you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mirror 1 [ exstatic.org ] Mirror 2 [ 128.210.109.29 ] Proxies : Squid installed and listening on ports : 7 , 13 , 53 , 993 , 995 , 3128Polipo installed and listening on port : 8123 .
Polipo is routed through Tor.Tor : port 9050 ( a socks5 proxy ) Ziproxy : Port 8080 ( good for low bandwidth connections .
It recompress images &amp; text.Socat : Must be run manually , but listens on port 443 and routes through Squid.SSH enabled , listening on ports 22,80,2222,222222 Users : root : # iran and iran : election .
If you enable ssh to the world , change the root password ( passwd ) .
This should enable ssh tunneling.-I created this for people on Fark who were having problems with squid .
Everyone here should n't have a problem .
It 's a bare bones ( netinst ) debian install with all the above installed and setup.I did NOT put ACLs in because there are reports here : http : //iran.sharearchy.com/ [ sharearchy.com ] that the ACL list is actually blocking some people in Iran.And could one of the mods please change to the coral cache of Austin 's website ?
He 's already getting DDoS 'd by Iran all this morning .
Slashdot is n't going to help anything.If any /.ers would like to help make it smaller , better , faster ( VPN ?
) , jjarvis98 at gmail.comAnd you 're free to inspect it to make sure I 'm not trying to r00t you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mirror 1 [exstatic.org]Mirror 2 [128.210.109.29]Proxies:Squid installed and listening on ports: 7, 13, 53, 993, 995, 3128Polipo installed and listening on port: 8123.
Polipo is routed through Tor.Tor: port 9050 (a socks5 proxy)Ziproxy: Port 8080 (good for low bandwidth connections.
It recompress images &amp; text.Socat: Must be run manually, but listens on port 443 and routes through Squid.SSH enabled, listening on ports 22,80,2222,222222 Users: root:#iran and iran:election.
If you enable ssh to the world, change the root password (passwd).
This should enable ssh tunneling.-I created this for people on Fark who were having problems with squid.
Everyone here shouldn't have a problem.
It's a bare bones (netinst) debian install with all the above installed and setup.I did NOT put ACLs in because there are reports here: http://iran.sharearchy.com/ [sharearchy.com] that the ACL list is actually blocking some people in Iran.And could one of the mods please change to the coral cache of Austin's website?
He's already getting DDoS'd by Iran all this morning.
Slashdot isn't going to help anything.If any /.ers would like to help make it smaller, better, faster (VPN?
), jjarvis98 at gmail.comAnd you're free to inspect it to make sure I'm not trying to r00t you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356229</id>
	<title>Re:If you know anything about statistics...</title>
	<author>Shadow of Eternity</author>
	<datestamp>1245161160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkj-vd-q5A8" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkj-vd-q5A8</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>And you're suprised by CNN's conduct?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = dkj-vd-q5A8 [ youtube.com ] And you 're suprised by CNN 's conduct ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkj-vd-q5A8 [youtube.com]And you're suprised by CNN's conduct?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355539</id>
	<title>Re:It happens</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245156780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're leaving out the part where the electoral commission overseeing the Coleman v Franken recount was a partisan commission subjectively interpreting individual ballots "intent" with different criteria depending on whether the "intent" was in favor of the democrat or republican candidate.</p><p>Actually, I think it's a startlingly good example of how to commit fraud in an election--at least if you mean fraud in the sense that it violates the spirit of the law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're leaving out the part where the electoral commission overseeing the Coleman v Franken recount was a partisan commission subjectively interpreting individual ballots " intent " with different criteria depending on whether the " intent " was in favor of the democrat or republican candidate.Actually , I think it 's a startlingly good example of how to commit fraud in an election--at least if you mean fraud in the sense that it violates the spirit of the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're leaving out the part where the electoral commission overseeing the Coleman v Franken recount was a partisan commission subjectively interpreting individual ballots "intent" with different criteria depending on whether the "intent" was in favor of the democrat or republican candidate.Actually, I think it's a startlingly good example of how to commit fraud in an election--at least if you mean fraud in the sense that it violates the spirit of the law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355339</id>
	<title>It happens</title>
	<author>larry bagina</author>
	<datestamp>1245155640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Look at Norm Coleman vs Al Franken.  The original count gave Norm Coleman a slight win.  In the recount, every correction overwhelmingly went for Al Franken.  It happens. And on average, only 40\% of eligible voters do vote,  so sometimes you would expect the total number of votes in a district to outnumber the total number of registered voters.  Doesn't mean there was fraud or duplicate counting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at Norm Coleman vs Al Franken .
The original count gave Norm Coleman a slight win .
In the recount , every correction overwhelmingly went for Al Franken .
It happens .
And on average , only 40 \ % of eligible voters do vote , so sometimes you would expect the total number of votes in a district to outnumber the total number of registered voters .
Does n't mean there was fraud or duplicate counting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at Norm Coleman vs Al Franken.
The original count gave Norm Coleman a slight win.
In the recount, every correction overwhelmingly went for Al Franken.
It happens.
And on average, only 40\% of eligible voters do vote,  so sometimes you would expect the total number of votes in a district to outnumber the total number of registered voters.
Doesn't mean there was fraud or duplicate counting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355661</id>
	<title>Modammad Asgari knew</title>
	<author>fsiefken</author>
	<datestamp>1245157500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>tweet: unconfirmed: Mohammad Asgari,a system administrator in the interior ministry (in charge of securing election LAN) was killed #iranelection</htmltext>
<tokenext>tweet : unconfirmed : Mohammad Asgari,a system administrator in the interior ministry ( in charge of securing election LAN ) was killed # iranelection</tokentext>
<sentencetext>tweet: unconfirmed: Mohammad Asgari,a system administrator in the interior ministry (in charge of securing election LAN) was killed #iranelection</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357623</id>
	<title>Re:If you know anything about statistics...</title>
	<author>Rocketship Underpant</author>
	<datestamp>1245172980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be fair, Ahmadinejad reportedly gained a lot of favour among Azeris by instituting reforms that would allow them to attend university, study, and earn degrees in their own language, Azeri. While he may have cheated in the election, Ahmadinejad's popularity is something that is very difficult to guess at if you don't live in Iran.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , Ahmadinejad reportedly gained a lot of favour among Azeris by instituting reforms that would allow them to attend university , study , and earn degrees in their own language , Azeri .
While he may have cheated in the election , Ahmadinejad 's popularity is something that is very difficult to guess at if you do n't live in Iran .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, Ahmadinejad reportedly gained a lot of favour among Azeris by instituting reforms that would allow them to attend university, study, and earn degrees in their own language, Azeri.
While he may have cheated in the election, Ahmadinejad's popularity is something that is very difficult to guess at if you don't live in Iran.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355479</id>
	<title>On a different perspective..</title>
	<author>mercurized</author>
	<datestamp>1245156360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So in some parts of the world it is just pure manipulation of an election, and in others where there is even proof of irregularities in the voting count and process, it isnt.

Guess Iran should have contracted that one to Diebold, nobody would speak up then.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>So in some parts of the world it is just pure manipulation of an election , and in others where there is even proof of irregularities in the voting count and process , it isnt .
Guess Iran should have contracted that one to Diebold , nobody would speak up then .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So in some parts of the world it is just pure manipulation of an election, and in others where there is even proof of irregularities in the voting count and process, it isnt.
Guess Iran should have contracted that one to Diebold, nobody would speak up then.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28360359</id>
	<title>Re:If you know anything about statistics...</title>
	<author>Paua Fritter</author>
	<datestamp>1245247080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A'nejad officially had consistent support all across the country and all through demographics. He officially did equally well in cities vs. rural areas.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Citation required!</p><p>According to state-owned TV station PressTV, the official results from the interior ministry show no such thing. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian\_presidential\_election,\_2009#Provincial\_Results" title="wikipedia.org">The actual figures are quoted on Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>According to these (apparently official) figures, Ahmadinejad's support ranged from a low of 44.8\% in Tehran up to a maximum of 77\% in Semnan. Is that what you mean by "consistent"?</p><blockquote><div><p>A'nejad officially did equally well among sexes, age groups, class levels, ethnic groups, everything.</p></div> </blockquote><p>I wasn't aware that there were official results broken down by sex, age, class, and ethnic groups. I suspect that you are just making it up, actually.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A'nejad officially had consistent support all across the country and all through demographics .
He officially did equally well in cities vs. rural areas .
Citation required ! According to state-owned TV station PressTV , the official results from the interior ministry show no such thing .
The actual figures are quoted on Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] .According to these ( apparently official ) figures , Ahmadinejad 's support ranged from a low of 44.8 \ % in Tehran up to a maximum of 77 \ % in Semnan .
Is that what you mean by " consistent " ? A'nejad officially did equally well among sexes , age groups , class levels , ethnic groups , everything .
I was n't aware that there were official results broken down by sex , age , class , and ethnic groups .
I suspect that you are just making it up , actually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A'nejad officially had consistent support all across the country and all through demographics.
He officially did equally well in cities vs. rural areas.
Citation required!According to state-owned TV station PressTV, the official results from the interior ministry show no such thing.
The actual figures are quoted on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].According to these (apparently official) figures, Ahmadinejad's support ranged from a low of 44.8\% in Tehran up to a maximum of 77\% in Semnan.
Is that what you mean by "consistent"?A'nejad officially did equally well among sexes, age groups, class levels, ethnic groups, everything.
I wasn't aware that there were official results broken down by sex, age, class, and ethnic groups.
I suspect that you are just making it up, actually.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356381</id>
	<title>Re:ProxyBox Virtual Appliance</title>
	<author>Presto Vivace</author>
	<datestamp>1245162360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thank you for all your excellent work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you for all your excellent work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you for all your excellent work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28359347</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter whether the election was rigg</title>
	<author>Reservoir Penguin</author>
	<datestamp>1245236760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Someone up the thread said a very smart thing. Mosavi won the young Internet savvy crowd. Ahmadinejad won the rest of this relatively poor country. I've seen this happen in Russia twice over the last 10 years. Pro-western liberal reformers easily won every Internet poll. Yet ask a random Russian on the street what they think of the liberals and you are likely to get spit on and kicked. Populist Putin with his "Resurgent Russia" national idea easily rules the minds of an overwhelming majority of Russians. Internet is great for self-education, expanding your mind, getting to know people of different backgrounds and opinions. But it also makes it exceptionally easy to shut off into a comfortable little social circle where everyone thinks the same as you, so when IRL election results hit you, you are left wondering - Who are these people who voted for Ahmadinejad??? I mean everyone I KNOW voted for the other guy! Must be fraud!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone up the thread said a very smart thing .
Mosavi won the young Internet savvy crowd .
Ahmadinejad won the rest of this relatively poor country .
I 've seen this happen in Russia twice over the last 10 years .
Pro-western liberal reformers easily won every Internet poll .
Yet ask a random Russian on the street what they think of the liberals and you are likely to get spit on and kicked .
Populist Putin with his " Resurgent Russia " national idea easily rules the minds of an overwhelming majority of Russians .
Internet is great for self-education , expanding your mind , getting to know people of different backgrounds and opinions .
But it also makes it exceptionally easy to shut off into a comfortable little social circle where everyone thinks the same as you , so when IRL election results hit you , you are left wondering - Who are these people who voted for Ahmadinejad ? ? ?
I mean everyone I KNOW voted for the other guy !
Must be fraud !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone up the thread said a very smart thing.
Mosavi won the young Internet savvy crowd.
Ahmadinejad won the rest of this relatively poor country.
I've seen this happen in Russia twice over the last 10 years.
Pro-western liberal reformers easily won every Internet poll.
Yet ask a random Russian on the street what they think of the liberals and you are likely to get spit on and kicked.
Populist Putin with his "Resurgent Russia" national idea easily rules the minds of an overwhelming majority of Russians.
Internet is great for self-education, expanding your mind, getting to know people of different backgrounds and opinions.
But it also makes it exceptionally easy to shut off into a comfortable little social circle where everyone thinks the same as you, so when IRL election results hit you, you are left wondering - Who are these people who voted for Ahmadinejad???
I mean everyone I KNOW voted for the other guy!
Must be fraud!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28364155</id>
	<title>Re:The results match pre-election poll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245266040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It seems that the only group that DIDN'T support Ahmadinejad was the internet connected (a small minority of the country), which explains why they feel the election was stolen:"</p><p>If it is true that so many people support Ahmadinejad, and so few Mousavi, then why do Mousavi's protests garner 250K-1M people and Ahmadinejad's only a couple thousand (and many of those bussed in from the countryside)? I've heard about this poll before and would like more information on how it was done and who did it. The Washington Post is not an expert on Iranian affairs and does not have the wherewithal to conduct such a poll.</p><p>As for nuclear inspection, If you are in favor of it, why vote for the guy who has never allowed for the possibility in negotiations, and has given up other things rather than allow it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It seems that the only group that DID N'T support Ahmadinejad was the internet connected ( a small minority of the country ) , which explains why they feel the election was stolen : " If it is true that so many people support Ahmadinejad , and so few Mousavi , then why do Mousavi 's protests garner 250K-1M people and Ahmadinejad 's only a couple thousand ( and many of those bussed in from the countryside ) ?
I 've heard about this poll before and would like more information on how it was done and who did it .
The Washington Post is not an expert on Iranian affairs and does not have the wherewithal to conduct such a poll.As for nuclear inspection , If you are in favor of it , why vote for the guy who has never allowed for the possibility in negotiations , and has given up other things rather than allow it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It seems that the only group that DIDN'T support Ahmadinejad was the internet connected (a small minority of the country), which explains why they feel the election was stolen:"If it is true that so many people support Ahmadinejad, and so few Mousavi, then why do Mousavi's protests garner 250K-1M people and Ahmadinejad's only a couple thousand (and many of those bussed in from the countryside)?
I've heard about this poll before and would like more information on how it was done and who did it.
The Washington Post is not an expert on Iranian affairs and does not have the wherewithal to conduct such a poll.As for nuclear inspection, If you are in favor of it, why vote for the guy who has never allowed for the possibility in negotiations, and has given up other things rather than allow it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28360083</id>
	<title>Evidence against the fairness of the Iranian elect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245244860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Ahmadinejad actually won the election in the Tehran district, then every single person who didn't vote for him must have taken to the streets to protest, in order to generate the number of people that have been reported. This is clearly unreasonable, as many people are too worried about their personal health to defy the police under any circumstances. It is therefore highly likely that the election results have been doctored in a major way; most likely because Ahmadinejad suffered a really humiliating defeat in the actual count of votes. The large scale fraud was probably planned well in advance, with the numbers that each district would report being well prepared ahead of time. The Iranian regime is despotic, but it is by no means stupid.</p><p>Holding verifyably correct elections is actually rather simple. There must always be at least 2 election officials who are unlikely to be in collusion with each other at the polling station. The more the better. The ballot box must be sealed and the paper ballot must be dropped in by an official while the voter is watching. Vote counting must be done locally and the public must have access to watch the counting. Indeed, it must be possible for the public to watch the ballot box from the time it is sealed until it is opened for counting. At the counting, all votes are opened and sorted in piles after candidate, party or whatever is the most relevant criterion. If you want to produce a very fast preliminary result, you can weigh each pile. Big piles can be subdivided for the ensuing count, where each pile is counted and recounted by two different people. If they come to the same total, that is registered as official, otherwise the pile is recounted until you get 3 matching results. All results are reported by telling them to the person keeping tally in a loud enough voice that an observer can keep an independent tally. In the end the total number of votes should match the number of voters registered as having voted. All these numbers are reported up the chain of command for registration and aggregation.</p><p>Where I live, this procedure takes 4 hours after the closing of the polling stations. After the count, the votes are sent to the regional offices of the government, where civil servants make a total recount. This is finished 5 days after the elections and unless there are any discrepancies, this becomes the official election results. The ballots are then stored for a number of years in case anyone wishes to contest the elections.</p><p>If the correctness of the election procedure can not be verified by any group of citizens, you do not have a true democracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Ahmadinejad actually won the election in the Tehran district , then every single person who did n't vote for him must have taken to the streets to protest , in order to generate the number of people that have been reported .
This is clearly unreasonable , as many people are too worried about their personal health to defy the police under any circumstances .
It is therefore highly likely that the election results have been doctored in a major way ; most likely because Ahmadinejad suffered a really humiliating defeat in the actual count of votes .
The large scale fraud was probably planned well in advance , with the numbers that each district would report being well prepared ahead of time .
The Iranian regime is despotic , but it is by no means stupid.Holding verifyably correct elections is actually rather simple .
There must always be at least 2 election officials who are unlikely to be in collusion with each other at the polling station .
The more the better .
The ballot box must be sealed and the paper ballot must be dropped in by an official while the voter is watching .
Vote counting must be done locally and the public must have access to watch the counting .
Indeed , it must be possible for the public to watch the ballot box from the time it is sealed until it is opened for counting .
At the counting , all votes are opened and sorted in piles after candidate , party or whatever is the most relevant criterion .
If you want to produce a very fast preliminary result , you can weigh each pile .
Big piles can be subdivided for the ensuing count , where each pile is counted and recounted by two different people .
If they come to the same total , that is registered as official , otherwise the pile is recounted until you get 3 matching results .
All results are reported by telling them to the person keeping tally in a loud enough voice that an observer can keep an independent tally .
In the end the total number of votes should match the number of voters registered as having voted .
All these numbers are reported up the chain of command for registration and aggregation.Where I live , this procedure takes 4 hours after the closing of the polling stations .
After the count , the votes are sent to the regional offices of the government , where civil servants make a total recount .
This is finished 5 days after the elections and unless there are any discrepancies , this becomes the official election results .
The ballots are then stored for a number of years in case anyone wishes to contest the elections.If the correctness of the election procedure can not be verified by any group of citizens , you do not have a true democracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Ahmadinejad actually won the election in the Tehran district, then every single person who didn't vote for him must have taken to the streets to protest, in order to generate the number of people that have been reported.
This is clearly unreasonable, as many people are too worried about their personal health to defy the police under any circumstances.
It is therefore highly likely that the election results have been doctored in a major way; most likely because Ahmadinejad suffered a really humiliating defeat in the actual count of votes.
The large scale fraud was probably planned well in advance, with the numbers that each district would report being well prepared ahead of time.
The Iranian regime is despotic, but it is by no means stupid.Holding verifyably correct elections is actually rather simple.
There must always be at least 2 election officials who are unlikely to be in collusion with each other at the polling station.
The more the better.
The ballot box must be sealed and the paper ballot must be dropped in by an official while the voter is watching.
Vote counting must be done locally and the public must have access to watch the counting.
Indeed, it must be possible for the public to watch the ballot box from the time it is sealed until it is opened for counting.
At the counting, all votes are opened and sorted in piles after candidate, party or whatever is the most relevant criterion.
If you want to produce a very fast preliminary result, you can weigh each pile.
Big piles can be subdivided for the ensuing count, where each pile is counted and recounted by two different people.
If they come to the same total, that is registered as official, otherwise the pile is recounted until you get 3 matching results.
All results are reported by telling them to the person keeping tally in a loud enough voice that an observer can keep an independent tally.
In the end the total number of votes should match the number of voters registered as having voted.
All these numbers are reported up the chain of command for registration and aggregation.Where I live, this procedure takes 4 hours after the closing of the polling stations.
After the count, the votes are sent to the regional offices of the government, where civil servants make a total recount.
This is finished 5 days after the elections and unless there are any discrepancies, this becomes the official election results.
The ballots are then stored for a number of years in case anyone wishes to contest the elections.If the correctness of the election procedure can not be verified by any group of citizens, you do not have a true democracy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28359895</id>
	<title>The west is being manipulated as well.</title>
	<author>jbssm</author>
	<datestamp>1245243360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I also have serious doubts that the election in Iran was completely free, <b>but</b> in the west we are being manipulated by the communication.<p>
I was curious about Moussavi and I checked his background before the elections. The wikipedia article about him was quite detailed. Moussavi was quite a dark character, prime minister since 1981 to 1988, arrived in the power by directly supporting  Komeni massacre of thousands of revolution dissidents (with many references to being involved in those same massacres as well). During his mandate as prime minister and according to the NGO's acting in the region at the time was responsible for strictnening the sharia law (this is, increased the penalties to whoever broke the sharia laws) and implemented the most restrictive measures to free speech since the revolution. At the end of it's mandate, ordered the execution of 30000 dissidents of the regimen (in 1988).</p><p>
Suddenly after the Western media starter covering the manifestations in Iran, all the dark passages of Moussavi past disappeared from his wikipedia page: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir-Hossein\_Mousavi" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir-Hossein\_Mousavi</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p>
Seems that someone is very interested in covering for Moussavi bloody past<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... probably because he may be a sanguinary<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but he is probably a sanguinary that will be subservient to the west.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I also have serious doubts that the election in Iran was completely free , but in the west we are being manipulated by the communication .
I was curious about Moussavi and I checked his background before the elections .
The wikipedia article about him was quite detailed .
Moussavi was quite a dark character , prime minister since 1981 to 1988 , arrived in the power by directly supporting Komeni massacre of thousands of revolution dissidents ( with many references to being involved in those same massacres as well ) .
During his mandate as prime minister and according to the NGO 's acting in the region at the time was responsible for strictnening the sharia law ( this is , increased the penalties to whoever broke the sharia laws ) and implemented the most restrictive measures to free speech since the revolution .
At the end of it 's mandate , ordered the execution of 30000 dissidents of the regimen ( in 1988 ) .
Suddenly after the Western media starter covering the manifestations in Iran , all the dark passages of Moussavi past disappeared from his wikipedia page : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir-Hossein \ _Mousavi [ wikipedia.org ] Seems that someone is very interested in covering for Moussavi bloody past ... probably because he may be a sanguinary ... but he is probably a sanguinary that will be subservient to the west .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also have serious doubts that the election in Iran was completely free, but in the west we are being manipulated by the communication.
I was curious about Moussavi and I checked his background before the elections.
The wikipedia article about him was quite detailed.
Moussavi was quite a dark character, prime minister since 1981 to 1988, arrived in the power by directly supporting  Komeni massacre of thousands of revolution dissidents (with many references to being involved in those same massacres as well).
During his mandate as prime minister and according to the NGO's acting in the region at the time was responsible for strictnening the sharia law (this is, increased the penalties to whoever broke the sharia laws) and implemented the most restrictive measures to free speech since the revolution.
At the end of it's mandate, ordered the execution of 30000 dissidents of the regimen (in 1988).
Suddenly after the Western media starter covering the manifestations in Iran, all the dark passages of Moussavi past disappeared from his wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir-Hossein\_Mousavi [wikipedia.org] 
Seems that someone is very interested in covering for Moussavi bloody past ... probably because he may be a sanguinary ... but he is probably a sanguinary that will be subservient to the west.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356401</id>
	<title>Re:The results match pre-election poll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245162480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The story accompanying the poll and this post are both quite credulous about these results.  <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/did-polling-predict-ahmadinejad-victory.html" title="fivethirtyeight.com" rel="nofollow">Nate Silver</a> [fivethirtyeight.com] applies a little Surveying 101 and shows clearly that these claims are dubious at best.  Short answer: This poll showed Ahmadinejad with 33.8\%, Mousavi with 13.6\%, others with 2.6\%, and  -- this is the kicker -- 7.6\% saying "none", 15.1\% "refused" and 27.4\% "don't know."  For an election of this magnitude, that is quite a large number who couldn't choose.  The more likely explanation is that some percentage of them were afraid to say whom they supported.  Now, does that mean all those other 50.1\% were Mousavi supporters?  Of course not.  But we shouldn't buy claims that this poll demonstrated 2-1 support for Ahmadinejad.  (Given that Mousavi supporters clearly had more to fear, at the very least the lead would have been much narrower.)  Methodological problems are another matter, but we don't need to get into the weeds in order to see something was wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The story accompanying the poll and this post are both quite credulous about these results .
Nate Silver [ fivethirtyeight.com ] applies a little Surveying 101 and shows clearly that these claims are dubious at best .
Short answer : This poll showed Ahmadinejad with 33.8 \ % , Mousavi with 13.6 \ % , others with 2.6 \ % , and -- this is the kicker -- 7.6 \ % saying " none " , 15.1 \ % " refused " and 27.4 \ % " do n't know .
" For an election of this magnitude , that is quite a large number who could n't choose .
The more likely explanation is that some percentage of them were afraid to say whom they supported .
Now , does that mean all those other 50.1 \ % were Mousavi supporters ?
Of course not .
But we should n't buy claims that this poll demonstrated 2-1 support for Ahmadinejad .
( Given that Mousavi supporters clearly had more to fear , at the very least the lead would have been much narrower .
) Methodological problems are another matter , but we do n't need to get into the weeds in order to see something was wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The story accompanying the poll and this post are both quite credulous about these results.
Nate Silver [fivethirtyeight.com] applies a little Surveying 101 and shows clearly that these claims are dubious at best.
Short answer: This poll showed Ahmadinejad with 33.8\%, Mousavi with 13.6\%, others with 2.6\%, and  -- this is the kicker -- 7.6\% saying "none", 15.1\% "refused" and 27.4\% "don't know.
"  For an election of this magnitude, that is quite a large number who couldn't choose.
The more likely explanation is that some percentage of them were afraid to say whom they supported.
Now, does that mean all those other 50.1\% were Mousavi supporters?
Of course not.
But we shouldn't buy claims that this poll demonstrated 2-1 support for Ahmadinejad.
(Given that Mousavi supporters clearly had more to fear, at the very least the lead would have been much narrower.
)  Methodological problems are another matter, but we don't need to get into the weeds in order to see something was wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357357</id>
	<title>Re:If you know anything about statistics...</title>
	<author>amicusNYCL</author>
	<datestamp>1245170100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know, I know, Nancy Grace.  I can't stand that person, I've never been able to sit through her show.  I forgive them for that, since I avoid it, but they really seemed like the best information for most international stories.  Glenn Beck is just there for amusement.  If I don't trust CNN anymore I'm not sure who I'll go to for news, I might just have to settle for reading BBC online.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know , I know , Nancy Grace .
I ca n't stand that person , I 've never been able to sit through her show .
I forgive them for that , since I avoid it , but they really seemed like the best information for most international stories .
Glenn Beck is just there for amusement .
If I do n't trust CNN anymore I 'm not sure who I 'll go to for news , I might just have to settle for reading BBC online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know, I know, Nancy Grace.
I can't stand that person, I've never been able to sit through her show.
I forgive them for that, since I avoid it, but they really seemed like the best information for most international stories.
Glenn Beck is just there for amusement.
If I don't trust CNN anymore I'm not sure who I'll go to for news, I might just have to settle for reading BBC online.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355293</id>
	<title>hai</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245155400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i love math</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i love math</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i love math</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28364155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356443
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28361351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28362109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28363155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28363903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28372121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28362063
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28385947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28360735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28364201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28358495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28360359
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357599
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357811
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356711
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357317
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28359763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28359507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356453
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28359347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28367219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357151
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28368473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356695
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356357
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356249
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357623
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28358947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356193
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357357
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355993
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28358005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28365483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_2137203_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2137203.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355291
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355525
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356381
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28368473
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356907
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28359507
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2137203.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355585
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357537
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28364201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28358947
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28365483
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356657
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2137203.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355273
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28367219
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2137203.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355303
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355517
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356357
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356285
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355783
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357599
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356229
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357317
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28359763
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356557
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28360359
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356443
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357623
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356471
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357357
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28358495
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355575
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356837
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28372121
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357107
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355897
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355759
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356691
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28363903
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355487
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357003
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2137203.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355293
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2137203.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357849
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28364155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356157
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356525
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355827
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356653
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356453
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356105
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355999
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356401
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357651
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355841
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28360735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355993
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356053
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28385947
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357811
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28362063
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2137203.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356365
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2137203.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355657
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2137203.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355295
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2137203.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356193
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357151
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2137203.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355409
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2137203.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355661
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2137203.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355339
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355539
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28361351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28356123
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2137203.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355597
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28357985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28358005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28355881
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28359347
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_2137203.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28362109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_2137203.28363155
</commentlist>
</conversation>
