<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_07_1155236</id>
	<title>US, Russia Reach Nuclear Arsenal Agreement</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1246970940000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://peacecorpslibrary.org/" rel="nofollow">Peace Corps Library</a> writes <i>"The United States and Russia, seeking to move forward on one of the most significant arms control treaties since the end of the cold war, announced that they had reached a preliminary agreement on cutting each country's stockpiles of strategic nuclear weapons, effectively setting the stage for a successor to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start), a cold war-era pact that expires in December. Under the framework, negotiators are to be instructed to craft a treaty that would <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/world/europe/07prexy.html">cut strategic warheads for each side to between 1,500 and 1,675</a>, down from the limit of 2,200 slated to take effect in 2012 <a href="http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL31448\_20081230.pdf">under the Treaty of Moscow</a> (PDF) signed by President George W. Bush. The limit on delivery vehicles would be cut to between 500 and 1,100 from the 1,600 currently allowed under Start. Perhaps more important than the specific limits would be a revised and extended verification system that otherwise would expire with Start in December. The United States currently has 1,198 land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-based missiles and bombers, which together are capable of delivering 5,576 warheads, according to its most recent Start report in January, while Russia reported that it has 816 delivery vehicles capable of delivering 3,909 warheads. 'We have a mutual interest in protecting both of our populations from the kinds of danger that weapons proliferation is presenting today,' said President Obama."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Peace Corps Library writes " The United States and Russia , seeking to move forward on one of the most significant arms control treaties since the end of the cold war , announced that they had reached a preliminary agreement on cutting each country 's stockpiles of strategic nuclear weapons , effectively setting the stage for a successor to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty ( Start ) , a cold war-era pact that expires in December .
Under the framework , negotiators are to be instructed to craft a treaty that would cut strategic warheads for each side to between 1,500 and 1,675 , down from the limit of 2,200 slated to take effect in 2012 under the Treaty of Moscow ( PDF ) signed by President George W. Bush. The limit on delivery vehicles would be cut to between 500 and 1,100 from the 1,600 currently allowed under Start .
Perhaps more important than the specific limits would be a revised and extended verification system that otherwise would expire with Start in December .
The United States currently has 1,198 land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles , submarine-based missiles and bombers , which together are capable of delivering 5,576 warheads , according to its most recent Start report in January , while Russia reported that it has 816 delivery vehicles capable of delivering 3,909 warheads .
'We have a mutual interest in protecting both of our populations from the kinds of danger that weapons proliferation is presenting today, ' said President Obama .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Peace Corps Library writes "The United States and Russia, seeking to move forward on one of the most significant arms control treaties since the end of the cold war, announced that they had reached a preliminary agreement on cutting each country's stockpiles of strategic nuclear weapons, effectively setting the stage for a successor to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start), a cold war-era pact that expires in December.
Under the framework, negotiators are to be instructed to craft a treaty that would cut strategic warheads for each side to between 1,500 and 1,675, down from the limit of 2,200 slated to take effect in 2012 under the Treaty of Moscow (PDF) signed by President George W. Bush. The limit on delivery vehicles would be cut to between 500 and 1,100 from the 1,600 currently allowed under Start.
Perhaps more important than the specific limits would be a revised and extended verification system that otherwise would expire with Start in December.
The United States currently has 1,198 land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-based missiles and bombers, which together are capable of delivering 5,576 warheads, according to its most recent Start report in January, while Russia reported that it has 816 delivery vehicles capable of delivering 3,909 warheads.
'We have a mutual interest in protecting both of our populations from the kinds of danger that weapons proliferation is presenting today,' said President Obama.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607075</id>
	<title>Re:Really?!?</title>
	<author>Talderas</author>
	<datestamp>1246977540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sort of. That figure does include MIRVs, but those are also trying to be reduce/removed as well. Launch vehicles means missiles, but missile is not the only method by which to deliver a nuclear device. Remember in the 1950s when we have B-50s with nukes on board flying in the air for hours, periodically being refueled? Aside from being a show of force, it was a nuclear arsenal that couldn't be touched by a Soviet nuclear strike. Anyway, we still have aircraft delivered nuclear warheads, and the plane that can deliver a warhead doesn't count against the launch vehicles limit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sort of .
That figure does include MIRVs , but those are also trying to be reduce/removed as well .
Launch vehicles means missiles , but missile is not the only method by which to deliver a nuclear device .
Remember in the 1950s when we have B-50s with nukes on board flying in the air for hours , periodically being refueled ?
Aside from being a show of force , it was a nuclear arsenal that could n't be touched by a Soviet nuclear strike .
Anyway , we still have aircraft delivered nuclear warheads , and the plane that can deliver a warhead does n't count against the launch vehicles limit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sort of.
That figure does include MIRVs, but those are also trying to be reduce/removed as well.
Launch vehicles means missiles, but missile is not the only method by which to deliver a nuclear device.
Remember in the 1950s when we have B-50s with nukes on board flying in the air for hours, periodically being refueled?
Aside from being a show of force, it was a nuclear arsenal that couldn't be touched by a Soviet nuclear strike.
Anyway, we still have aircraft delivered nuclear warheads, and the plane that can deliver a warhead doesn't count against the launch vehicles limit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607857</id>
	<title>FLAGS</title>
	<author>Sam36</author>
	<datestamp>1246980360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>More flags? More fun! Six Flags!</htmltext>
<tokenext>More flags ?
More fun !
Six Flags !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More flags?
More fun!
Six Flags!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608713</id>
	<title>Bolton really is a cock</title>
	<author>MosesJones</author>
	<datestamp>1246983660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>John Bolton repeatedly demonstrates exactly why he was a rubbish choice for the UN.  From accusing presenters on the BBC Today programme of being "left wing" just because they wanted him to answer a question to his complete and utter inability to view the world through anything other than jaundiced eyes.</p><p>The man is so far out of touch with normal reality and the norms of society as to be scary.  Basically if John Bolton doesn't like it then 99.99\% of the world's population will almost certainly think its a good idea.  Hell he even fell out with Bush and Cheney.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>John Bolton repeatedly demonstrates exactly why he was a rubbish choice for the UN .
From accusing presenters on the BBC Today programme of being " left wing " just because they wanted him to answer a question to his complete and utter inability to view the world through anything other than jaundiced eyes.The man is so far out of touch with normal reality and the norms of society as to be scary .
Basically if John Bolton does n't like it then 99.99 \ % of the world 's population will almost certainly think its a good idea .
Hell he even fell out with Bush and Cheney .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>John Bolton repeatedly demonstrates exactly why he was a rubbish choice for the UN.
From accusing presenters on the BBC Today programme of being "left wing" just because they wanted him to answer a question to his complete and utter inability to view the world through anything other than jaundiced eyes.The man is so far out of touch with normal reality and the norms of society as to be scary.
Basically if John Bolton doesn't like it then 99.99\% of the world's population will almost certainly think its a good idea.
Hell he even fell out with Bush and Cheney.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28613965</id>
	<title>Re:Getting rid of obsolete weapons</title>
	<author>debrisslider</author>
	<datestamp>1246961100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a huge difference between what Reagan wanted with SDI and what is technologically possible even today. Our current ABM programs are designed to shoot down single missiles, from rogue countries or an accidental Russian/Chinese launch. They are in no way feasible for stopping any sort of full-on attack or retaliation. As a strategic weapon, ICMBs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles are FAR from obsolete. Drones and micro-cruise missiles are TACTICAL weapons; you're not going to fight a full nuclear conflict with them.<br> <br>

I will grant that the idea of a full-scale nuclear assault is an obsolete idea, and nuclear missiles are obsolete in the sense that they will never be used as part of any realistic military objective, and maintaining massive quantities at a moment's notice is a wasteful relic of a reality over two decades past.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a huge difference between what Reagan wanted with SDI and what is technologically possible even today .
Our current ABM programs are designed to shoot down single missiles , from rogue countries or an accidental Russian/Chinese launch .
They are in no way feasible for stopping any sort of full-on attack or retaliation .
As a strategic weapon , ICMBs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles are FAR from obsolete .
Drones and micro-cruise missiles are TACTICAL weapons ; you 're not going to fight a full nuclear conflict with them .
I will grant that the idea of a full-scale nuclear assault is an obsolete idea , and nuclear missiles are obsolete in the sense that they will never be used as part of any realistic military objective , and maintaining massive quantities at a moment 's notice is a wasteful relic of a reality over two decades past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a huge difference between what Reagan wanted with SDI and what is technologically possible even today.
Our current ABM programs are designed to shoot down single missiles, from rogue countries or an accidental Russian/Chinese launch.
They are in no way feasible for stopping any sort of full-on attack or retaliation.
As a strategic weapon, ICMBs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles are FAR from obsolete.
Drones and micro-cruise missiles are TACTICAL weapons; you're not going to fight a full nuclear conflict with them.
I will grant that the idea of a full-scale nuclear assault is an obsolete idea, and nuclear missiles are obsolete in the sense that they will never be used as part of any realistic military objective, and maintaining massive quantities at a moment's notice is a wasteful relic of a reality over two decades past.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606883</id>
	<title>Re:Robert Strange McNamara 1916 - 2009</title>
	<author>readin</author>
	<datestamp>1246976520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Slightly offtopic but in high school I read a few books by Robert S McNamara who died yesterday [nytimes.com]. It's too bad he didn't get to see this agreement between old enemies</p></div></blockquote><p>

Don't feel too bad.  He did get to see the far more important breakthrough agreements negotiated and signed by Presidents Reagan and Bush 41.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slightly offtopic but in high school I read a few books by Robert S McNamara who died yesterday [ nytimes.com ] .
It 's too bad he did n't get to see this agreement between old enemies Do n't feel too bad .
He did get to see the far more important breakthrough agreements negotiated and signed by Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slightly offtopic but in high school I read a few books by Robert S McNamara who died yesterday [nytimes.com].
It's too bad he didn't get to see this agreement between old enemies

Don't feel too bad.
He did get to see the far more important breakthrough agreements negotiated and signed by Presidents Reagan and Bush 41.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607641</id>
	<title>Re:Down to 95\% of the world's arsenals!</title>
	<author>rumith</author>
	<datestamp>1246979640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Keeping in mind the long list of US invasions (which were carried out both under Republicans and under Democrats in nearly equal measure AFAIK), would you bet that the current administration won't launch a surprise attack against Russia as soon as their nuclear arsenal can be taken care of with the US antimissile defenses? I know that I wouldn't...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Keeping in mind the long list of US invasions ( which were carried out both under Republicans and under Democrats in nearly equal measure AFAIK ) , would you bet that the current administration wo n't launch a surprise attack against Russia as soon as their nuclear arsenal can be taken care of with the US antimissile defenses ?
I know that I would n't.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keeping in mind the long list of US invasions (which were carried out both under Republicans and under Democrats in nearly equal measure AFAIK), would you bet that the current administration won't launch a surprise attack against Russia as soon as their nuclear arsenal can be taken care of with the US antimissile defenses?
I know that I wouldn't...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606827</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607169</id>
	<title>Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246977840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.  See the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] by CNN.
<p>
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.  These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks).  Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian.  So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern.  Only about 65\% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama.  In other words, a maximum of 65\% support by any ethnic or racial group for <b>either</b> McCain <b>or</b> Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable.  (A maximum of 65\% for McCain is okay.  So, European-American support at 55\% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.)
</p><p>
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.  At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
</p><p>
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.  That claim is an outright lie.  Look at the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#NCDEM" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.  Consider the case of North Carolina.  Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.  Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.  Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.  Why?  African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
</p><p>
Here is the bottom line.  Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.  He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
</p><p>
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.  Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.  Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.  Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.  You need not defend your actions in any way.  Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>During the election , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
See the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] by CNN .
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics , Asian-Americans , etc .
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites ( and other non-Black folks ) .
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian .
So , Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and , hence , serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern .
Only about 65 \ % of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama .
In other words , a maximum of 65 \ % support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and , hence , is acceptable .
( A maximum of 65 \ % for McCain is okay .
So , European-American support at 55 \ % for McCain is well below this threshold and , hence , is not racist .
) If African-Americans were not racist , then at most 65 \ % of them would have supported Obama .
At that level of support , McCain would have won the presidential race .
At this point , African-American supremacists ( and apologists ) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he ( 1 ) is a member of the Democratic party and ( 2 ) supports its ideals .
That claim is an outright lie .
Look at the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] for the Democratic primaries .
Consider the case of North Carolina .
Again , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton .
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats , and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical .
Yet , 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton .
Why ? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
Here is the bottom line .
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America .
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans .
African-Americans have established that expressing " racial pride " by voting on the basis of skin color is 100 \ % acceptable .
Neither the " Wall Street Journal " nor the " New York Times " complained about this racist behavior .
Therefore , in future elections , please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color .
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American .
You need not defend your actions in any way .
Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today 's moral standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
See the exit-polling data [cnn.com] by CNN.
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks).
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian.
So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern.
Only about 65\% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama.
In other words, a maximum of 65\% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable.
(A maximum of 65\% for McCain is okay.
So, European-American support at 55\% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.
)

If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.
At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.
That claim is an outright lie.
Look at the exit-polling data [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.
Consider the case of North Carolina.
Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.
Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.
Why?  African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
Here is the bottom line.
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.
Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.
Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.
You need not defend your actions in any way.
Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607477</id>
	<title>Re:Down to 95\% of the world's arsenals!</title>
	<author>zorg50</author>
	<datestamp>1246979040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We need a clear, unambiguous policy that nukes are absolutely forbidden for every state with no double standards.</p></div><p>It's a lose-lose situation.  Sure, the double-standard argument is true, but that's only half of it.  If the US or another world power were to actually disarm completely, how long do you think it would take for some dictator or terrorist group to take advantage of that opportunity?  When mutually assured destruction is no longer an issue, we'll have the most to worry about.  The only exception, of course, would be if we had some way to determine, with 100\% certainty, that no nuclear weapons were possessed by anyone, and I don't think that's going to happen.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We need a clear , unambiguous policy that nukes are absolutely forbidden for every state with no double standards.It 's a lose-lose situation .
Sure , the double-standard argument is true , but that 's only half of it .
If the US or another world power were to actually disarm completely , how long do you think it would take for some dictator or terrorist group to take advantage of that opportunity ?
When mutually assured destruction is no longer an issue , we 'll have the most to worry about .
The only exception , of course , would be if we had some way to determine , with 100 \ % certainty , that no nuclear weapons were possessed by anyone , and I do n't think that 's going to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need a clear, unambiguous policy that nukes are absolutely forbidden for every state with no double standards.It's a lose-lose situation.
Sure, the double-standard argument is true, but that's only half of it.
If the US or another world power were to actually disarm completely, how long do you think it would take for some dictator or terrorist group to take advantage of that opportunity?
When mutually assured destruction is no longer an issue, we'll have the most to worry about.
The only exception, of course, would be if we had some way to determine, with 100\% certainty, that no nuclear weapons were possessed by anyone, and I don't think that's going to happen.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607223</id>
	<title>Re:Really?!?</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1246978080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Also, this is 500 launch vehicles and 1,500 warheads so I assume there are some MIRVs in there. </i></p><p>A few are probably armed with Death's Heads too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , this is 500 launch vehicles and 1,500 warheads so I assume there are some MIRVs in there .
A few are probably armed with Death 's Heads too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, this is 500 launch vehicles and 1,500 warheads so I assume there are some MIRVs in there.
A few are probably armed with Death's Heads too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28616741</id>
	<title>Strange</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1246977720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So THAT'S where the name "Dr. Strangelove" came from! *finally clicks*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So THAT 'S where the name " Dr. Strangelove " came from !
* finally clicks *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So THAT'S where the name "Dr. Strangelove" came from!
*finally clicks*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28611231</id>
	<title>Re:Robert Strange McNamara 1916 - 2009</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1246993620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know who he is, a war criminal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know who he is , a war criminal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know who he is, a war criminal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606971</id>
	<title>US reduces, Russia increases</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246977060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Russia never reduces its stock of nukes, american fools.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Russia never reduces its stock of nukes , american fools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Russia never reduces its stock of nukes, american fools.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28610319</id>
	<title>Re:Fallout</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246990200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't worry, if this reduction brings the number of warheads below the threshold for MAD to work then it will actually increase the likelihood of nuclear exchanges.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry , if this reduction brings the number of warheads below the threshold for MAD to work then it will actually increase the likelihood of nuclear exchanges .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry, if this reduction brings the number of warheads below the threshold for MAD to work then it will actually increase the likelihood of nuclear exchanges.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28610327</id>
	<title>Re:Down to 95\% of the world's arsenals!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246990260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; (genocide against Israel)</p><p>Got any basis for that, other than screaming yellow propaganda sources?  Your post suggests that the 200+ nuclear warheads in Israel's arsenal are more than deterrence enough...</p><p>&gt; the US refrains from using nukes except when attacked by nukes</p><p>Under the Bush Doctrine, still in effect, the United States "reserves the right" to strike first with a nuclear sneak attack, anywhere and at any time, on the President's sole discretion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; ( genocide against Israel ) Got any basis for that , other than screaming yellow propaganda sources ?
Your post suggests that the 200 + nuclear warheads in Israel 's arsenal are more than deterrence enough... &gt; the US refrains from using nukes except when attacked by nukesUnder the Bush Doctrine , still in effect , the United States " reserves the right " to strike first with a nuclear sneak attack , anywhere and at any time , on the President 's sole discretion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; (genocide against Israel)Got any basis for that, other than screaming yellow propaganda sources?
Your post suggests that the 200+ nuclear warheads in Israel's arsenal are more than deterrence enough...&gt; the US refrains from using nukes except when attacked by nukesUnder the Bush Doctrine, still in effect, the United States "reserves the right" to strike first with a nuclear sneak attack, anywhere and at any time, on the President's sole discretion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28615925</id>
	<title>Re:Robert Strange McNamara 1916 - 2009</title>
	<author>Perky\_Goth</author>
	<datestamp>1246970940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least he made some worthwhile contribution to the world. In the Iberian Peninsula, all we hear about is Cristiano Ronaldo...<br>Sigh.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least he made some worthwhile contribution to the world .
In the Iberian Peninsula , all we hear about is Cristiano Ronaldo...Sigh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least he made some worthwhile contribution to the world.
In the Iberian Peninsula, all we hear about is Cristiano Ronaldo...Sigh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608143</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606907</id>
	<title>Wow - Obama got just what he wanted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246976640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you realize how much it is costing to maintain our nuclear arsenal? And that our reactors for making the fissionable and fusionable parts are deteriorating, with little hope of getting a new one approved thanks to the "consortium of idiots afraid of anything nuclear so we'll keep burning natural gas".</p><p>So, this is a win-win.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you realize how much it is costing to maintain our nuclear arsenal ?
And that our reactors for making the fissionable and fusionable parts are deteriorating , with little hope of getting a new one approved thanks to the " consortium of idiots afraid of anything nuclear so we 'll keep burning natural gas " .So , this is a win-win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you realize how much it is costing to maintain our nuclear arsenal?
And that our reactors for making the fissionable and fusionable parts are deteriorating, with little hope of getting a new one approved thanks to the "consortium of idiots afraid of anything nuclear so we'll keep burning natural gas".So, this is a win-win.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608647</id>
	<title>Re:Down to 95\% of the world's arsenals!</title>
	<author>Sobrique</author>
	<datestamp>1246983420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you really think terrorists care about the possiblity of a retributive strike? Or more more fundamentally, could it \_ever\_ be a moral choice to order the launch order? Even if you knew you had incoming that would kill everyone in your country.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you really think terrorists care about the possiblity of a retributive strike ?
Or more more fundamentally , could it \ _ever \ _ be a moral choice to order the launch order ?
Even if you knew you had incoming that would kill everyone in your country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you really think terrorists care about the possiblity of a retributive strike?
Or more more fundamentally, could it \_ever\_ be a moral choice to order the launch order?
Even if you knew you had incoming that would kill everyone in your country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28611007</id>
	<title>Re:Down to 95\% of the world's arsenals!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246992660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the leaders of the aforementioned countries give speeches advocating genocide... to thunderous applause.</p></div><p>Where were you when McCain was giving his speeches? Granted he didn't make it to the presidential position, but half the country voted for him and applauded his stated goal to drop nukes across the middle east(genocide).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the leaders of the aforementioned countries give speeches advocating genocide... to thunderous applause.Where were you when McCain was giving his speeches ?
Granted he did n't make it to the presidential position , but half the country voted for him and applauded his stated goal to drop nukes across the middle east ( genocide ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the leaders of the aforementioned countries give speeches advocating genocide... to thunderous applause.Where were you when McCain was giving his speeches?
Granted he didn't make it to the presidential position, but half the country voted for him and applauded his stated goal to drop nukes across the middle east(genocide).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606827</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607345</id>
	<title>Re:Fallout</title>
	<author>NerdyLove</author>
	<datestamp>1246978500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oy, that sounds scary.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oy , that sounds scary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oy, that sounds scary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607705</id>
	<title>Re:Down to 95\% of the world's arsenals!</title>
	<author>R2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1246979880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We need a clear, unambiguous policy that <b>alcohol is</b> absolutely forbidden for every state with no double standards. Only then will anyone take <b>Prohibition</b> seriously."</p><p>Or substitute marijuana, tobacco, fast food, etc.</p><p>Cat's out of the bag, friend.  Pretending that it's possible to simply ban nuclear weapons by fiat is catastrophically naive.  Deal with the world as it is, not how you would pretend it to be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We need a clear , unambiguous policy that alcohol is absolutely forbidden for every state with no double standards .
Only then will anyone take Prohibition seriously .
" Or substitute marijuana , tobacco , fast food , etc.Cat 's out of the bag , friend .
Pretending that it 's possible to simply ban nuclear weapons by fiat is catastrophically naive .
Deal with the world as it is , not how you would pretend it to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We need a clear, unambiguous policy that alcohol is absolutely forbidden for every state with no double standards.
Only then will anyone take Prohibition seriously.
"Or substitute marijuana, tobacco, fast food, etc.Cat's out of the bag, friend.
Pretending that it's possible to simply ban nuclear weapons by fiat is catastrophically naive.
Deal with the world as it is, not how you would pretend it to be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607855</id>
	<title>What the HELL is wrong with slashdot?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246980360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slashdot has officially jumped the shark.</p><p>120 comments and not a single "In Soviet Russia" joke?</p><p>This is truly a sad day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot has officially jumped the shark.120 comments and not a single " In Soviet Russia " joke ? This is truly a sad day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot has officially jumped the shark.120 comments and not a single "In Soviet Russia" joke?This is truly a sad day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28616267</id>
	<title>Re:Down to 95\% of the world's arsenals!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246974000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Our presidents get in trouble for misspeaking or forgetting to bow or not dispensing enough foreign aid</p></div><p>Too bad they don't get in trouble for screwing up the economy and marching their own citizens to needless death.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Our presidents get in trouble for misspeaking or forgetting to bow or not dispensing enough foreign aidToo bad they do n't get in trouble for screwing up the economy and marching their own citizens to needless death .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our presidents get in trouble for misspeaking or forgetting to bow or not dispensing enough foreign aidToo bad they don't get in trouble for screwing up the economy and marching their own citizens to needless death.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606827</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606547</id>
	<title>Fallout</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246974720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>boooo, there goes my hopes of one day having a child that would roam the wastelands and be the savior of all humanity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>boooo , there goes my hopes of one day having a child that would roam the wastelands and be the savior of all humanity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>boooo, there goes my hopes of one day having a child that would roam the wastelands and be the savior of all humanity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606827</id>
	<title>Re:Down to 95\% of the world's arsenals!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246976160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But keep going, you've got a long way to go before you can start preaching to countries with a dozen or nuclear weapons about the need for restraint.</p></div><p>I don't buy that. One madman with a nuke is worse than a peaceful leader with a thousand nukes.
<br> <br>
It's not our number of nukes that allows us to preach to Iran and N. Korea, it's the fact that our leaders are held to certain standards. Our presidents get in trouble for misspeaking or forgetting to bow or not dispensing enough foreign aid; the leaders of the aforementioned countries give speeches advocating genocide... to thunderous applause.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But keep going , you 've got a long way to go before you can start preaching to countries with a dozen or nuclear weapons about the need for restraint.I do n't buy that .
One madman with a nuke is worse than a peaceful leader with a thousand nukes .
It 's not our number of nukes that allows us to preach to Iran and N. Korea , it 's the fact that our leaders are held to certain standards .
Our presidents get in trouble for misspeaking or forgetting to bow or not dispensing enough foreign aid ; the leaders of the aforementioned countries give speeches advocating genocide... to thunderous applause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But keep going, you've got a long way to go before you can start preaching to countries with a dozen or nuclear weapons about the need for restraint.I don't buy that.
One madman with a nuke is worse than a peaceful leader with a thousand nukes.
It's not our number of nukes that allows us to preach to Iran and N. Korea, it's the fact that our leaders are held to certain standards.
Our presidents get in trouble for misspeaking or forgetting to bow or not dispensing enough foreign aid; the leaders of the aforementioned countries give speeches advocating genocide... to thunderous applause.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607335</id>
	<title>Hopefully, not too far down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246978500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would MUCH rather that Russia and USA be armed to the point where an ABM site can interfere with a high percentage. In particular, China is now over 600 nuclear-tipped launchers, and appears to be building many more (and may actually already be up to 1000).<br> <br>
The simple fact is, that MAD prevented the cold war turning hot. Now, with China on a major defensive buildout, mostly space and nukes, the west (and russia) MUST keep its number up. Otherwise, this will encourage a few ppl in China to decide to turn things hot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would MUCH rather that Russia and USA be armed to the point where an ABM site can interfere with a high percentage .
In particular , China is now over 600 nuclear-tipped launchers , and appears to be building many more ( and may actually already be up to 1000 ) .
The simple fact is , that MAD prevented the cold war turning hot .
Now , with China on a major defensive buildout , mostly space and nukes , the west ( and russia ) MUST keep its number up .
Otherwise , this will encourage a few ppl in China to decide to turn things hot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would MUCH rather that Russia and USA be armed to the point where an ABM site can interfere with a high percentage.
In particular, China is now over 600 nuclear-tipped launchers, and appears to be building many more (and may actually already be up to 1000).
The simple fact is, that MAD prevented the cold war turning hot.
Now, with China on a major defensive buildout, mostly space and nukes, the west (and russia) MUST keep its number up.
Otherwise, this will encourage a few ppl in China to decide to turn things hot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28616787</id>
	<title>Re:Down to 95\% of the world's arsenals!</title>
	<author>Omestes</author>
	<datestamp>1246978080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Problem:  your just using a stereotype of some fictional arch-typical mad dictator who may or may not exist.  A quick glance at history and modern-geopolitics will show you that there are as many types of mad dictator as there is of elected ruler in developed countries.</p><p>Are we talking Hitlers, Mussilini's, Saddams, or Castros, or any of the creepy theocrats currently in the Middle East?  All of them are/were very different in character, and military stance.  And probably, from a strategic angle, have very different ways of being dealt with in an optimal way.</p><p>This isn't counting rogue, independent madmen, either, like Bin Laden, who could never be considered a dictator, but still would be a dire threat if he managed to get a nuke (or even a more boring flavor of WMD).  Even then we would need to deal with any armed, independant, mad man in a different way than any other armed, independant, mad man.  An Al Queda type organaztion is much different than  a right-wing seperatist militia, or even some wacko Jones Town type cult that somehow decided to arm itself (think the Branch Dravidians).</p><p>All threats are different, and should be dealt with individually.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem : your just using a stereotype of some fictional arch-typical mad dictator who may or may not exist .
A quick glance at history and modern-geopolitics will show you that there are as many types of mad dictator as there is of elected ruler in developed countries.Are we talking Hitlers , Mussilini 's , Saddams , or Castros , or any of the creepy theocrats currently in the Middle East ?
All of them are/were very different in character , and military stance .
And probably , from a strategic angle , have very different ways of being dealt with in an optimal way.This is n't counting rogue , independent madmen , either , like Bin Laden , who could never be considered a dictator , but still would be a dire threat if he managed to get a nuke ( or even a more boring flavor of WMD ) .
Even then we would need to deal with any armed , independant , mad man in a different way than any other armed , independant , mad man .
An Al Queda type organaztion is much different than a right-wing seperatist militia , or even some wacko Jones Town type cult that somehow decided to arm itself ( think the Branch Dravidians ) .All threats are different , and should be dealt with individually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problem:  your just using a stereotype of some fictional arch-typical mad dictator who may or may not exist.
A quick glance at history and modern-geopolitics will show you that there are as many types of mad dictator as there is of elected ruler in developed countries.Are we talking Hitlers, Mussilini's, Saddams, or Castros, or any of the creepy theocrats currently in the Middle East?
All of them are/were very different in character, and military stance.
And probably, from a strategic angle, have very different ways of being dealt with in an optimal way.This isn't counting rogue, independent madmen, either, like Bin Laden, who could never be considered a dictator, but still would be a dire threat if he managed to get a nuke (or even a more boring flavor of WMD).
Even then we would need to deal with any armed, independant, mad man in a different way than any other armed, independant, mad man.
An Al Queda type organaztion is much different than  a right-wing seperatist militia, or even some wacko Jones Town type cult that somehow decided to arm itself (think the Branch Dravidians).All threats are different, and should be dealt with individually.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607603</id>
	<title>Re:Really?!?</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1246979520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Really? They're aiming for 500 launch vehicles. Are there even that many targets to nuke or does Bolton just want us to do it a few times over for the refried beans effect?</p></div><p>Start w/ 500 theoretical vehicles.  25\% are non operational due to regular scheduled maintenance, waiting on spare parts, reconstruction/rebuilding, waiting on trained personnel to do a simple repair, paperwork screwed up, whatever.</p><p>Of the remaining 375, we could attack with, we'd like to split into four distinct missions.  Immediate counterattack/attack.  Delayed counterattack, as in stop this foolishness or we pound you just as hard in a half hour.  Deterrence against other "enemies" (so, we're fighting the Chinese today, but we'd like to deter the N.K. from starting a fight tomorrow).  Finally a quarter or so for reserve, for who knows what, spare parts or alien invasion or blasting a new panama canal or literally who knows, that's the whole point of a reserve.</p><p>Of the remaining 90 for an actual attack, figure maybe 1/2 won't even work.  Built by the lowest bidder.  Maintenance dude was hung over that day.  The Chinese spies that seem to effortlessly steal all our secret designs, were equally successful at inserting a failure mode into the designs.  Enemy fighter shot down the bomber.  Sub sunk by enemy sub while in the long tedious process of launching.  Probably 1 in 10 unmanned rockets blow up shortly after launching when no one is in a particular hurry, so the odds will be worse in wartime.</p><p>Of the remaining 40 or so "kabooms", figure we really are hot for destroying certain targets not just make big random bangs that may or may not do stuff.  So, figure on targeting 2 "kabooms" per target to make sure the target is most certainly going to get smooshed.</p><p>So, figure that starting with 500 treaty permitted vehicles, we might actually destroy 20 targets.</p><p>Now, 20 destroyed targets in Cuba is quite impressive, doesn't leave much left standing, definitely a demonstration of your "refried beans effect".  20 vaporized targets in China, not so impressive, not much of your "refried beans effect", in fact most of the country will be untouched and frankly unaffected as long as they don't listen to radio/TV/propoganda.</p><p>Therefore with only 500 treaty vehicles, the USA will no longer be able to deter large countries like China from attacking us.  I hope they are nice enough not to, but hope in one hand and \_\_\_\_ in another and see which hand fills up first...  We don't need to deter the little countries since the conventional military can smoosh them all on their own.</p><p>So, in a weird way it makes nuclear deterrence obsolete.  Therefore we will go back to world wars every generation or two.  Hope we all enjoy WWIII while we can!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
They 're aiming for 500 launch vehicles .
Are there even that many targets to nuke or does Bolton just want us to do it a few times over for the refried beans effect ? Start w/ 500 theoretical vehicles .
25 \ % are non operational due to regular scheduled maintenance , waiting on spare parts , reconstruction/rebuilding , waiting on trained personnel to do a simple repair , paperwork screwed up , whatever.Of the remaining 375 , we could attack with , we 'd like to split into four distinct missions .
Immediate counterattack/attack .
Delayed counterattack , as in stop this foolishness or we pound you just as hard in a half hour .
Deterrence against other " enemies " ( so , we 're fighting the Chinese today , but we 'd like to deter the N.K .
from starting a fight tomorrow ) .
Finally a quarter or so for reserve , for who knows what , spare parts or alien invasion or blasting a new panama canal or literally who knows , that 's the whole point of a reserve.Of the remaining 90 for an actual attack , figure maybe 1/2 wo n't even work .
Built by the lowest bidder .
Maintenance dude was hung over that day .
The Chinese spies that seem to effortlessly steal all our secret designs , were equally successful at inserting a failure mode into the designs .
Enemy fighter shot down the bomber .
Sub sunk by enemy sub while in the long tedious process of launching .
Probably 1 in 10 unmanned rockets blow up shortly after launching when no one is in a particular hurry , so the odds will be worse in wartime.Of the remaining 40 or so " kabooms " , figure we really are hot for destroying certain targets not just make big random bangs that may or may not do stuff .
So , figure on targeting 2 " kabooms " per target to make sure the target is most certainly going to get smooshed.So , figure that starting with 500 treaty permitted vehicles , we might actually destroy 20 targets.Now , 20 destroyed targets in Cuba is quite impressive , does n't leave much left standing , definitely a demonstration of your " refried beans effect " .
20 vaporized targets in China , not so impressive , not much of your " refried beans effect " , in fact most of the country will be untouched and frankly unaffected as long as they do n't listen to radio/TV/propoganda.Therefore with only 500 treaty vehicles , the USA will no longer be able to deter large countries like China from attacking us .
I hope they are nice enough not to , but hope in one hand and \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ in another and see which hand fills up first... We do n't need to deter the little countries since the conventional military can smoosh them all on their own.So , in a weird way it makes nuclear deterrence obsolete .
Therefore we will go back to world wars every generation or two .
Hope we all enjoy WWIII while we can !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
They're aiming for 500 launch vehicles.
Are there even that many targets to nuke or does Bolton just want us to do it a few times over for the refried beans effect?Start w/ 500 theoretical vehicles.
25\% are non operational due to regular scheduled maintenance, waiting on spare parts, reconstruction/rebuilding, waiting on trained personnel to do a simple repair, paperwork screwed up, whatever.Of the remaining 375, we could attack with, we'd like to split into four distinct missions.
Immediate counterattack/attack.
Delayed counterattack, as in stop this foolishness or we pound you just as hard in a half hour.
Deterrence against other "enemies" (so, we're fighting the Chinese today, but we'd like to deter the N.K.
from starting a fight tomorrow).
Finally a quarter or so for reserve, for who knows what, spare parts or alien invasion or blasting a new panama canal or literally who knows, that's the whole point of a reserve.Of the remaining 90 for an actual attack, figure maybe 1/2 won't even work.
Built by the lowest bidder.
Maintenance dude was hung over that day.
The Chinese spies that seem to effortlessly steal all our secret designs, were equally successful at inserting a failure mode into the designs.
Enemy fighter shot down the bomber.
Sub sunk by enemy sub while in the long tedious process of launching.
Probably 1 in 10 unmanned rockets blow up shortly after launching when no one is in a particular hurry, so the odds will be worse in wartime.Of the remaining 40 or so "kabooms", figure we really are hot for destroying certain targets not just make big random bangs that may or may not do stuff.
So, figure on targeting 2 "kabooms" per target to make sure the target is most certainly going to get smooshed.So, figure that starting with 500 treaty permitted vehicles, we might actually destroy 20 targets.Now, 20 destroyed targets in Cuba is quite impressive, doesn't leave much left standing, definitely a demonstration of your "refried beans effect".
20 vaporized targets in China, not so impressive, not much of your "refried beans effect", in fact most of the country will be untouched and frankly unaffected as long as they don't listen to radio/TV/propoganda.Therefore with only 500 treaty vehicles, the USA will no longer be able to deter large countries like China from attacking us.
I hope they are nice enough not to, but hope in one hand and \_\_\_\_ in another and see which hand fills up first...  We don't need to deter the little countries since the conventional military can smoosh them all on their own.So, in a weird way it makes nuclear deterrence obsolete.
Therefore we will go back to world wars every generation or two.
Hope we all enjoy WWIII while we can!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28609207</id>
	<title>Re:Really?!?</title>
	<author>rickyars</author>
	<datestamp>1246985700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you need to have enough launch vehicles to maintain your second strike capability, without which it might be advantageous for your adversary to strike first. so the question is:

are 500 launch vehicles enough to (1) survive the initial attack and (2) successfully hit back with enough force that deterrence is still credible?</htmltext>
<tokenext>you need to have enough launch vehicles to maintain your second strike capability , without which it might be advantageous for your adversary to strike first .
so the question is : are 500 launch vehicles enough to ( 1 ) survive the initial attack and ( 2 ) successfully hit back with enough force that deterrence is still credible ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you need to have enough launch vehicles to maintain your second strike capability, without which it might be advantageous for your adversary to strike first.
so the question is:

are 500 launch vehicles enough to (1) survive the initial attack and (2) successfully hit back with enough force that deterrence is still credible?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608029</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone know</title>
	<author>gmack</author>
	<datestamp>1246981080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm blown away that this entirely inaccurate screed got modded informative.</p><p>Said President's term wasn't up until January and as much as he wanted to extend his term limit he wasn't likely to succeed. It also wasn't likely that had he succeeded in extending his term limit he would have been reelected anyhow since his approval ratings were at an all time low.</p><p>I also need to point out that an ally of Chavez he wasn't an American ally by any stretch of the imagination.</p><p>Proper democracies work by voting lame duck leaders out at the end of the term so what happened was a military coup.  Obama speaking out against a military coup was, in fact, arguing in favor of the rule of law not against it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm blown away that this entirely inaccurate screed got modded informative.Said President 's term was n't up until January and as much as he wanted to extend his term limit he was n't likely to succeed .
It also was n't likely that had he succeeded in extending his term limit he would have been reelected anyhow since his approval ratings were at an all time low.I also need to point out that an ally of Chavez he was n't an American ally by any stretch of the imagination.Proper democracies work by voting lame duck leaders out at the end of the term so what happened was a military coup .
Obama speaking out against a military coup was , in fact , arguing in favor of the rule of law not against it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm blown away that this entirely inaccurate screed got modded informative.Said President's term wasn't up until January and as much as he wanted to extend his term limit he wasn't likely to succeed.
It also wasn't likely that had he succeeded in extending his term limit he would have been reelected anyhow since his approval ratings were at an all time low.I also need to point out that an ally of Chavez he wasn't an American ally by any stretch of the imagination.Proper democracies work by voting lame duck leaders out at the end of the term so what happened was a military coup.
Obama speaking out against a military coup was, in fact, arguing in favor of the rule of law not against it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28660155</id>
	<title>Re:Down to 95\% of the world's arsenals!</title>
	<author>t\_ban</author>
	<datestamp>1247328600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We need a clear, unambiguous policy that nukes are absolutely forbidden for every state with no double standards. Only then will anyone take disarmament seriously.</p></div></blockquote><p>And if a rogue nation chooses not to take it seriously, then what do the others do, having themselves taken it seriously and disposed of their own arsenals? Not having nukes yourself, how do you *force* (after reasoning fails) others not to have them too? This is an anxiety that shall plague even the most benevolent nuclear power (assuming there is actually such a critter), and, i believe, ultimately result in the big powers deciding to retain some nukes after all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We need a clear , unambiguous policy that nukes are absolutely forbidden for every state with no double standards .
Only then will anyone take disarmament seriously.And if a rogue nation chooses not to take it seriously , then what do the others do , having themselves taken it seriously and disposed of their own arsenals ?
Not having nukes yourself , how do you * force * ( after reasoning fails ) others not to have them too ?
This is an anxiety that shall plague even the most benevolent nuclear power ( assuming there is actually such a critter ) , and , i believe , ultimately result in the big powers deciding to retain some nukes after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need a clear, unambiguous policy that nukes are absolutely forbidden for every state with no double standards.
Only then will anyone take disarmament seriously.And if a rogue nation chooses not to take it seriously, then what do the others do, having themselves taken it seriously and disposed of their own arsenals?
Not having nukes yourself, how do you *force* (after reasoning fails) others not to have them too?
This is an anxiety that shall plague even the most benevolent nuclear power (assuming there is actually such a critter), and, i believe, ultimately result in the big powers deciding to retain some nukes after all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28611201</id>
	<title>The rule of the Constitution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246993500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now let's see if the news media reports what Obama does any better than they've been reporting Honduras removing a law-breaking president.  Obama doesn't think this treaty with Russia will be approved by the Senate, so he wants to use presidential decrees to make the same changes.  Just follow the rules and give it to the Senate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now let 's see if the news media reports what Obama does any better than they 've been reporting Honduras removing a law-breaking president .
Obama does n't think this treaty with Russia will be approved by the Senate , so he wants to use presidential decrees to make the same changes .
Just follow the rules and give it to the Senate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now let's see if the news media reports what Obama does any better than they've been reporting Honduras removing a law-breaking president.
Obama doesn't think this treaty with Russia will be approved by the Senate, so he wants to use presidential decrees to make the same changes.
Just follow the rules and give it to the Senate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608397</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome Back Carter...</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1246982520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course he does. The bottom line is that the numbers they are cutting back to iour still enough. One of the reason Russia and the US are cutting back is costs to maintain an aging stockpile.</p><p>Ironically if these other countries just didn't bother to develop nuclear weapon, eventually the big players would stop. It's too expensive to maintain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course he does .
The bottom line is that the numbers they are cutting back to iour still enough .
One of the reason Russia and the US are cutting back is costs to maintain an aging stockpile.Ironically if these other countries just did n't bother to develop nuclear weapon , eventually the big players would stop .
It 's too expensive to maintain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course he does.
The bottom line is that the numbers they are cutting back to iour still enough.
One of the reason Russia and the US are cutting back is costs to maintain an aging stockpile.Ironically if these other countries just didn't bother to develop nuclear weapon, eventually the big players would stop.
It's too expensive to maintain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608091</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone know</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246981260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's get some facts straight here...</p><p>The Honduran President's term was not up.  It's not up until January.  He was trying to organize a vote on a constitutional referendum to allow him to run for a second term, which would likely have failed anyway.  Yes, he was doing something illegal.  But so was Nixon, and I don't remember the army ousting him.</p><p>To single out President Obama for his condemning of the coup is pretty disingenuous, considering pretty much every country in the region, and the UN, said the same thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's get some facts straight here...The Honduran President 's term was not up .
It 's not up until January .
He was trying to organize a vote on a constitutional referendum to allow him to run for a second term , which would likely have failed anyway .
Yes , he was doing something illegal .
But so was Nixon , and I do n't remember the army ousting him.To single out President Obama for his condemning of the coup is pretty disingenuous , considering pretty much every country in the region , and the UN , said the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's get some facts straight here...The Honduran President's term was not up.
It's not up until January.
He was trying to organize a vote on a constitutional referendum to allow him to run for a second term, which would likely have failed anyway.
Yes, he was doing something illegal.
But so was Nixon, and I don't remember the army ousting him.To single out President Obama for his condemning of the coup is pretty disingenuous, considering pretty much every country in the region, and the UN, said the same thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28620517</id>
	<title>START, not Start</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1247061780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START\_I" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START\_I</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>It's an acronym, not a word.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START \ _I [ wikipedia.org ] It 's an acronym , not a word .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START\_I [wikipedia.org]It's an acronym, not a word.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28609969</id>
	<title>Re:Down to 95\% of the world's arsenals!</title>
	<author>TheBracket</author>
	<datestamp>1246988700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>We need a clear, unambiguous policy that nukes are absolutely forbidden for every state with no double standards.</p></div><p>It's a lose-lose situation.  Sure, the double-standard argument is true, but that's only half of it.  If the US or another world power were to actually disarm completely, how long do you think it would take for some dictator or terrorist group to take advantage of that opportunity?  </p></div><p>This demonstrates a trueism often repeated in the Defense Studies community: arms control really only works when you don't need it. If you are on good enough terms to sit down and sign agreements, then you probably aren't about to blow each other up anyway.... if you ARE that hostile, chances are that negotiations aren't going to work very well.</p><p>(That said, I'm not sure I agree with Dr. Gray's famous assertion that a nuclear armed neighbourhood is a more polite neighbourhood - we'll find out, I guess)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We need a clear , unambiguous policy that nukes are absolutely forbidden for every state with no double standards.It 's a lose-lose situation .
Sure , the double-standard argument is true , but that 's only half of it .
If the US or another world power were to actually disarm completely , how long do you think it would take for some dictator or terrorist group to take advantage of that opportunity ?
This demonstrates a trueism often repeated in the Defense Studies community : arms control really only works when you do n't need it .
If you are on good enough terms to sit down and sign agreements , then you probably are n't about to blow each other up anyway.... if you ARE that hostile , chances are that negotiations are n't going to work very well .
( That said , I 'm not sure I agree with Dr. Gray 's famous assertion that a nuclear armed neighbourhood is a more polite neighbourhood - we 'll find out , I guess )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need a clear, unambiguous policy that nukes are absolutely forbidden for every state with no double standards.It's a lose-lose situation.
Sure, the double-standard argument is true, but that's only half of it.
If the US or another world power were to actually disarm completely, how long do you think it would take for some dictator or terrorist group to take advantage of that opportunity?
This demonstrates a trueism often repeated in the Defense Studies community: arms control really only works when you don't need it.
If you are on good enough terms to sit down and sign agreements, then you probably aren't about to blow each other up anyway.... if you ARE that hostile, chances are that negotiations aren't going to work very well.
(That said, I'm not sure I agree with Dr. Gray's famous assertion that a nuclear armed neighbourhood is a more polite neighbourhood - we'll find out, I guess)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607541</id>
	<title>Didn't we learn ANYTHING from the 80's?</title>
	<author>Alzheimers</author>
	<datestamp>1246979280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only winning move is <b> <i>not to play</i> </b></p><p>How about a nice game of chess?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only winning move is not to play How about a nice game of chess ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only winning move is  not to play How about a nice game of chess?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28611589</id>
	<title>Re:Down to 95\% of the world's arsenals!</title>
	<author>iiiears</author>
	<datestamp>1246994880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly that.</p><p>The enemy is within ourselves.</p><p>Fear is more powerful than rational thought. The MAD doctrine is proof of it.<br>
&nbsp; Eventually i believe nuclear weapons will be seen differently and become acceptable tools of war. They are now acceptable tools of "Diplomacy". Proliferation is likely inevitable.</p><p>
&nbsp; It is in human nature to find a use for tools created at great expense. It is in human nature for national leaders to define enemies. It is more likely for failed national leaders to need enemies if only to distract their followers and maintain power.<br>
&nbsp; If this agreement remains in force forever and others further reduce the threat of war, today is a day for celebration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly that.The enemy is within ourselves.Fear is more powerful than rational thought .
The MAD doctrine is proof of it .
  Eventually i believe nuclear weapons will be seen differently and become acceptable tools of war .
They are now acceptable tools of " Diplomacy " .
Proliferation is likely inevitable .
  It is in human nature to find a use for tools created at great expense .
It is in human nature for national leaders to define enemies .
It is more likely for failed national leaders to need enemies if only to distract their followers and maintain power .
  If this agreement remains in force forever and others further reduce the threat of war , today is a day for celebration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly that.The enemy is within ourselves.Fear is more powerful than rational thought.
The MAD doctrine is proof of it.
  Eventually i believe nuclear weapons will be seen differently and become acceptable tools of war.
They are now acceptable tools of "Diplomacy".
Proliferation is likely inevitable.
  It is in human nature to find a use for tools created at great expense.
It is in human nature for national leaders to define enemies.
It is more likely for failed national leaders to need enemies if only to distract their followers and maintain power.
  If this agreement remains in force forever and others further reduce the threat of war, today is a day for celebration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607947</id>
	<title>Re:Robert Strange McNamara 1916 - 2009</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1246980660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I haven't read McNamara's stuff, but H.R. McMaster offers a pretty critical view of the run-up to Vietnam in "Dereliction of Duty". He goes further than calling things that happened mistakes and errors in judgment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't read McNamara 's stuff , but H.R .
McMaster offers a pretty critical view of the run-up to Vietnam in " Dereliction of Duty " .
He goes further than calling things that happened mistakes and errors in judgment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't read McNamara's stuff, but H.R.
McMaster offers a pretty critical view of the run-up to Vietnam in "Dereliction of Duty".
He goes further than calling things that happened mistakes and errors in judgment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28613913</id>
	<title>Re:Down to 95\% of the world's arsenals!</title>
	<author>amorsen</author>
	<datestamp>1246960920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you knew that everyone in your country would be dead, there wouldn't be any point in doing the retributive strike. For something less than that (which is almost certain to be the case; it's pretty hard to kill everyone), it could certainly be moral to launch a retributive strike -- unless your morals forbid killing people in war in general.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you knew that everyone in your country would be dead , there would n't be any point in doing the retributive strike .
For something less than that ( which is almost certain to be the case ; it 's pretty hard to kill everyone ) , it could certainly be moral to launch a retributive strike -- unless your morals forbid killing people in war in general .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you knew that everyone in your country would be dead, there wouldn't be any point in doing the retributive strike.
For something less than that (which is almost certain to be the case; it's pretty hard to kill everyone), it could certainly be moral to launch a retributive strike -- unless your morals forbid killing people in war in general.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606615</id>
	<title>Down to 95\% of the world's arsenals!</title>
	<author>fantomas</author>
	<datestamp>1246974960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BBC radio is reporting this will bring the USA and Russia down to owning a mere 95\% of the world's nuclear weapons. Go USA! Go Russia!</p><p>Seriously, good work both countries for making a step in the right direction. But keep going, you've got a long way to go before you can start preaching to countries with a dozen or nuclear weapons about the need for restraint.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BBC radio is reporting this will bring the USA and Russia down to owning a mere 95 \ % of the world 's nuclear weapons .
Go USA !
Go Russia ! Seriously , good work both countries for making a step in the right direction .
But keep going , you 've got a long way to go before you can start preaching to countries with a dozen or nuclear weapons about the need for restraint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BBC radio is reporting this will bring the USA and Russia down to owning a mere 95\% of the world's nuclear weapons.
Go USA!
Go Russia!Seriously, good work both countries for making a step in the right direction.
But keep going, you've got a long way to go before you can start preaching to countries with a dozen or nuclear weapons about the need for restraint.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607635</id>
	<title>Re:Down to 95\% of the world's arsenals!</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1246979580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We need a clear, unambiguous policy that nukes are absolutely forbidden for every state with no double standards.</i></p><p>Oh, well, that's ok because the US has tons of double-standards. (Or maybe I parsed that sentence wrong...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We need a clear , unambiguous policy that nukes are absolutely forbidden for every state with no double standards.Oh , well , that 's ok because the US has tons of double-standards .
( Or maybe I parsed that sentence wrong... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need a clear, unambiguous policy that nukes are absolutely forbidden for every state with no double standards.Oh, well, that's ok because the US has tons of double-standards.
(Or maybe I parsed that sentence wrong...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606555</id>
	<title>i really like slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246974720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hi there</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hi there</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hi there</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606569</id>
	<title>This is good news for science...</title>
	<author>Bill\_the\_Engineer</author>
	<datestamp>1246974780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This could mean even more cheap launch vehicles for satellites, since launching missiles is a good way of reducing their numbers...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This could mean even more cheap launch vehicles for satellites , since launching missiles is a good way of reducing their numbers.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This could mean even more cheap launch vehicles for satellites, since launching missiles is a good way of reducing their numbers...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608083</id>
	<title>Re:Down to 95\% of the world's arsenals!</title>
	<author>c6gunner</author>
	<datestamp>1246981260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>would you bet that the current administration won't launch a surprise attack against Russia as soon as their nuclear arsenal can be taken care of with the US antimissile defenses? I know that I wouldn't...</p></div></blockquote><p>Then you're a fool.  Sorry for the ad-hom, but there's really no other way to respond to such an irrational statement.  If you think Obama is interested in Nuking the Russians, you're either an idiot or a lunatic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>would you bet that the current administration wo n't launch a surprise attack against Russia as soon as their nuclear arsenal can be taken care of with the US antimissile defenses ?
I know that I would n't...Then you 're a fool .
Sorry for the ad-hom , but there 's really no other way to respond to such an irrational statement .
If you think Obama is interested in Nuking the Russians , you 're either an idiot or a lunatic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>would you bet that the current administration won't launch a surprise attack against Russia as soon as their nuclear arsenal can be taken care of with the US antimissile defenses?
I know that I wouldn't...Then you're a fool.
Sorry for the ad-hom, but there's really no other way to respond to such an irrational statement.
If you think Obama is interested in Nuking the Russians, you're either an idiot or a lunatic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608143</id>
	<title>Re:Robert Strange McNamara 1916 - 2009</title>
	<author>Shakrai</author>
	<datestamp>1246981560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A more than slightly crazy musician and probable child molester dies and it's all the news can talk about for three weeks as people cry in the streets and memorial concerts are held all over the country. A man who was partially responsible for guiding the world through the cold war without destroying modern civilization dies and no one even knows who he is.</p></div><p>You forgot the part where the crazy probable child molester pushed the coverage of the struggle in Iran off the front pages.......
</p><p>Fourth estate indeed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A more than slightly crazy musician and probable child molester dies and it 's all the news can talk about for three weeks as people cry in the streets and memorial concerts are held all over the country .
A man who was partially responsible for guiding the world through the cold war without destroying modern civilization dies and no one even knows who he is.You forgot the part where the crazy probable child molester pushed the coverage of the struggle in Iran off the front pages...... . Fourth estate indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A more than slightly crazy musician and probable child molester dies and it's all the news can talk about for three weeks as people cry in the streets and memorial concerts are held all over the country.
A man who was partially responsible for guiding the world through the cold war without destroying modern civilization dies and no one even knows who he is.You forgot the part where the crazy probable child molester pushed the coverage of the struggle in Iran off the front pages.......
Fourth estate indeed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607343</id>
	<title>Re:Fallout</title>
	<author>tarius8105</author>
	<datestamp>1246978500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you hear news of a 80 foot tall walking robot named Liberty Prime, I would say start walking to your designated vault-tec vault and prepare for the apocolypse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you hear news of a 80 foot tall walking robot named Liberty Prime , I would say start walking to your designated vault-tec vault and prepare for the apocolypse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you hear news of a 80 foot tall walking robot named Liberty Prime, I would say start walking to your designated vault-tec vault and prepare for the apocolypse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608393</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone know</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1246982520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Errm, his term limit <a href="http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaystory.cfm?story\_id=13952942" title="economist.com">expires in January.</a> [economist.com]  Zelaya certainly appears to have been playing fast and loose with his country's Constitution, but more so did the military and the Honduran Congress.  What is clear is that in Honduras, the military is calling the shots and regardless of the circumstances, that is <i>not right.</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Errm , his term limit expires in January .
[ economist.com ] Zelaya certainly appears to have been playing fast and loose with his country 's Constitution , but more so did the military and the Honduran Congress .
What is clear is that in Honduras , the military is calling the shots and regardless of the circumstances , that is not right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Errm, his term limit expires in January.
[economist.com]  Zelaya certainly appears to have been playing fast and loose with his country's Constitution, but more so did the military and the Honduran Congress.
What is clear is that in Honduras, the military is calling the shots and regardless of the circumstances, that is not right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28609189</id>
	<title>Re:Fallout</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246985640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What are you talking about?  China could still invade Alaska, precipitating the whole thing.  Especially with Palin stepping down, she was the only thing standing between the commies and the US!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What are you talking about ?
China could still invade Alaska , precipitating the whole thing .
Especially with Palin stepping down , she was the only thing standing between the commies and the US !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are you talking about?
China could still invade Alaska, precipitating the whole thing.
Especially with Palin stepping down, she was the only thing standing between the commies and the US!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28610559</id>
	<title>Question!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246991100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would they be able to use up the dismantled nuclear materials to make another reactor with without having to pay for mining of the stuff...(plutonium, uranium, etc..), or is the materials wasted in the making of the warhead to begin with?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would they be able to use up the dismantled nuclear materials to make another reactor with without having to pay for mining of the stuff... ( plutonium , uranium , etc.. ) , or is the materials wasted in the making of the warhead to begin with ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would they be able to use up the dismantled nuclear materials to make another reactor with without having to pay for mining of the stuff...(plutonium, uranium, etc..), or is the materials wasted in the making of the warhead to begin with?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608755</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong thing for the right reasons?</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1246983900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>My worry is that Russia will use the money, released from no longer having to maintain part of their arsenal, to have another foray into another ex-Soviet state.</i></p><p>Who gives a shit?  The only reason why conventional skirmishes have ever been a problem is because you then have to worry about them going nuclear.</p><p>If the Russians want to go and get a few hundred thousand of themselves killed in Chechnya or the Ukraine, I hope they enjoy themselves, but as long as it doesn't have the potential to become either nuclear or large scale conventional, there's no particular reason why anyone else should care.  If Afghanistan didn't teach them anything, then let them bash their heads against the imperialistic brick wall a few more times if they want; aside from the invaded country, it's no skin off anyone else's nose at all.</p><p>Americans need to stop caring so much about every minor regional scuffle that breaks out.  Learn to mind your own business, and refrain from getting involved; it will hurt you a lot less in the long run, if nothing else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My worry is that Russia will use the money , released from no longer having to maintain part of their arsenal , to have another foray into another ex-Soviet state.Who gives a shit ?
The only reason why conventional skirmishes have ever been a problem is because you then have to worry about them going nuclear.If the Russians want to go and get a few hundred thousand of themselves killed in Chechnya or the Ukraine , I hope they enjoy themselves , but as long as it does n't have the potential to become either nuclear or large scale conventional , there 's no particular reason why anyone else should care .
If Afghanistan did n't teach them anything , then let them bash their heads against the imperialistic brick wall a few more times if they want ; aside from the invaded country , it 's no skin off anyone else 's nose at all.Americans need to stop caring so much about every minor regional scuffle that breaks out .
Learn to mind your own business , and refrain from getting involved ; it will hurt you a lot less in the long run , if nothing else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My worry is that Russia will use the money, released from no longer having to maintain part of their arsenal, to have another foray into another ex-Soviet state.Who gives a shit?
The only reason why conventional skirmishes have ever been a problem is because you then have to worry about them going nuclear.If the Russians want to go and get a few hundred thousand of themselves killed in Chechnya or the Ukraine, I hope they enjoy themselves, but as long as it doesn't have the potential to become either nuclear or large scale conventional, there's no particular reason why anyone else should care.
If Afghanistan didn't teach them anything, then let them bash their heads against the imperialistic brick wall a few more times if they want; aside from the invaded country, it's no skin off anyone else's nose at all.Americans need to stop caring so much about every minor regional scuffle that breaks out.
Learn to mind your own business, and refrain from getting involved; it will hurt you a lot less in the long run, if nothing else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607625</id>
	<title>Welcome Back Carter...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246979520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's nice to see that the appeasement policies of President Carter's second term haven't skipped a beat since the end of his first (there's something to be said for consistency).  Still, I find it a bit disconcerting that he appears not to have noticed that there are now other players in the nuclear proliferation game beyond the US and Soviet Union.  I hope he plans to give some recognition to that fact soon, since those other players are not nearly as rational and level headed as the USSR.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's nice to see that the appeasement policies of President Carter 's second term have n't skipped a beat since the end of his first ( there 's something to be said for consistency ) .
Still , I find it a bit disconcerting that he appears not to have noticed that there are now other players in the nuclear proliferation game beyond the US and Soviet Union .
I hope he plans to give some recognition to that fact soon , since those other players are not nearly as rational and level headed as the USSR .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's nice to see that the appeasement policies of President Carter's second term haven't skipped a beat since the end of his first (there's something to be said for consistency).
Still, I find it a bit disconcerting that he appears not to have noticed that there are now other players in the nuclear proliferation game beyond the US and Soviet Union.
I hope he plans to give some recognition to that fact soon, since those other players are not nearly as rational and level headed as the USSR.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28609043</id>
	<title>that is not the worst part</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1246985040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the worst part is the Congress using the death as a distraction to get some of their less savory items into law</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the worst part is the Congress using the death as a distraction to get some of their less savory items into law</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the worst part is the Congress using the death as a distraction to get some of their less savory items into law</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28609679</id>
	<title>Re:Robert Strange McNamara 1916 - 2009</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246987440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you say "partially responsible for guiding the world through the cold war without destroying modern civilization", are you referring to Billy Jean or Beat It?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you say " partially responsible for guiding the world through the cold war without destroying modern civilization " , are you referring to Billy Jean or Beat It ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you say "partially responsible for guiding the world through the cold war without destroying modern civilization", are you referring to Billy Jean or Beat It?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28618583</id>
	<title>Re:Down to 95\% of the world's arsenals!</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1246996140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Remove American nukes and threats of nuclear retaliation, and suddenly NK's nukes give them the ability to extort anything they want from their defenseless neighbors.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

So this also removes the US's considerable conventional forces?<br> <br>

You're logic is flawed.<br> <br>

You claim they are building Nuclear weapons as a deterrent, correct. This is not however a deterrent to the US. North Korea is more concerned about the technologically superior armies of South Korea, Japan and Taiwan as well as the ASEAN nations (I know it's an economic alliance, but its faster then listing all the SE Asian nations.). The US is an afterthought. The combined might of South Korea and Japan could effectively wipe North Korea's conventional forces in short order without help from the US/NATO or ASEAN so their desire for nuclear weapons is already designed as a deterrent to non-nuclear powers. Japan, South Korea or anyone else in Asia is not bowing to the empty threats of North Korea because even if they did manage launch Nukes against Seoul, Tokyo, Taipei and Kuala Lumpur at once the standing conventional armies of these nations will respond within seconds with bloody retribution (the whole world would).<br> <br>

If the US got rid of its nukes its ability to make war is not diminished one iota, why you ask? well because all the conventional arms are still there, the nuclear arms are only meant to defend against a nuclear attack of equal size. A nuclear weapon is only to deter against a conventional attack and every dictator knows that once it is used that deterrent is gone, fortunately so do all non-dictators. How many nukes would it take to destroy the standing army of the US? how accurate would the delivery systems need to be? and most importantly a ballistic missile can be traced directly to its point of origin, it's a smoking gun and there's no hiding once this launched<br> <br>

You really have to get out of this 60's mindset that you are fighting evil empires.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remove American nukes and threats of nuclear retaliation , and suddenly NK 's nukes give them the ability to extort anything they want from their defenseless neighbors .
So this also removes the US 's considerable conventional forces ?
You 're logic is flawed .
You claim they are building Nuclear weapons as a deterrent , correct .
This is not however a deterrent to the US .
North Korea is more concerned about the technologically superior armies of South Korea , Japan and Taiwan as well as the ASEAN nations ( I know it 's an economic alliance , but its faster then listing all the SE Asian nations. ) .
The US is an afterthought .
The combined might of South Korea and Japan could effectively wipe North Korea 's conventional forces in short order without help from the US/NATO or ASEAN so their desire for nuclear weapons is already designed as a deterrent to non-nuclear powers .
Japan , South Korea or anyone else in Asia is not bowing to the empty threats of North Korea because even if they did manage launch Nukes against Seoul , Tokyo , Taipei and Kuala Lumpur at once the standing conventional armies of these nations will respond within seconds with bloody retribution ( the whole world would ) .
If the US got rid of its nukes its ability to make war is not diminished one iota , why you ask ?
well because all the conventional arms are still there , the nuclear arms are only meant to defend against a nuclear attack of equal size .
A nuclear weapon is only to deter against a conventional attack and every dictator knows that once it is used that deterrent is gone , fortunately so do all non-dictators .
How many nukes would it take to destroy the standing army of the US ?
how accurate would the delivery systems need to be ?
and most importantly a ballistic missile can be traced directly to its point of origin , it 's a smoking gun and there 's no hiding once this launched You really have to get out of this 60 's mindset that you are fighting evil empires .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remove American nukes and threats of nuclear retaliation, and suddenly NK's nukes give them the ability to extort anything they want from their defenseless neighbors.
So this also removes the US's considerable conventional forces?
You're logic is flawed.
You claim they are building Nuclear weapons as a deterrent, correct.
This is not however a deterrent to the US.
North Korea is more concerned about the technologically superior armies of South Korea, Japan and Taiwan as well as the ASEAN nations (I know it's an economic alliance, but its faster then listing all the SE Asian nations.).
The US is an afterthought.
The combined might of South Korea and Japan could effectively wipe North Korea's conventional forces in short order without help from the US/NATO or ASEAN so their desire for nuclear weapons is already designed as a deterrent to non-nuclear powers.
Japan, South Korea or anyone else in Asia is not bowing to the empty threats of North Korea because even if they did manage launch Nukes against Seoul, Tokyo, Taipei and Kuala Lumpur at once the standing conventional armies of these nations will respond within seconds with bloody retribution (the whole world would).
If the US got rid of its nukes its ability to make war is not diminished one iota, why you ask?
well because all the conventional arms are still there, the nuclear arms are only meant to defend against a nuclear attack of equal size.
A nuclear weapon is only to deter against a conventional attack and every dictator knows that once it is used that deterrent is gone, fortunately so do all non-dictators.
How many nukes would it take to destroy the standing army of the US?
how accurate would the delivery systems need to be?
and most importantly a ballistic missile can be traced directly to its point of origin, it's a smoking gun and there's no hiding once this launched 

You really have to get out of this 60's mindset that you are fighting evil empires.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607129</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone know</title>
	<author>confused one</author>
	<datestamp>1246977720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>700 each.  If you can't see that 1400 fewer 100kT+ nuclear weapons is a significant reduction, then you're being blinded by something and need to think about it a bit more.  You'd be naive to think that the number will <i>ever</i> go to 0.  It's not going to happen.  You're also not going to get a single massive reduction to a small (100's) number.  It's going to happen in steps, like this.  </p><p>We've dropped from a peak of &gt; 21,000 nuclear weapons, nearly evenly distributed between the U.S. and the old U.S.S.R.  Keep that in mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>700 each .
If you ca n't see that 1400 fewer 100kT + nuclear weapons is a significant reduction , then you 're being blinded by something and need to think about it a bit more .
You 'd be naive to think that the number will ever go to 0 .
It 's not going to happen .
You 're also not going to get a single massive reduction to a small ( 100 's ) number .
It 's going to happen in steps , like this .
We 've dropped from a peak of &gt; 21,000 nuclear weapons , nearly evenly distributed between the U.S. and the old U.S.S.R. Keep that in mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>700 each.
If you can't see that 1400 fewer 100kT+ nuclear weapons is a significant reduction, then you're being blinded by something and need to think about it a bit more.
You'd be naive to think that the number will ever go to 0.
It's not going to happen.
You're also not going to get a single massive reduction to a small (100's) number.
It's going to happen in steps, like this.
We've dropped from a peak of &gt; 21,000 nuclear weapons, nearly evenly distributed between the U.S. and the old U.S.S.R.  Keep that in mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607683</id>
	<title>Re:Robert Strange McNamara 1916 - 2009</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246979820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps now that he's looking down from above he realizes that the only governments are enemies -- not the people of either nation who have never even met.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps now that he 's looking down from above he realizes that the only governments are enemies -- not the people of either nation who have never even met .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps now that he's looking down from above he realizes that the only governments are enemies -- not the people of either nation who have never even met.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28614363</id>
	<title>Re:Comes up a little short</title>
	<author>debrisslider</author>
	<datestamp>1246962600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It depends on what kind of 'solution' you are interested in. The U.S. already has an anti-ballistic missile system designed to stop small-scale launches (a single missile from North Korea, an accidental launch of a Russian or Chinese missile). However, there is no technology that would work in a larger-scale conflict. Nuclear weapons and delivery methods are simply too effective. As has been said many times, hitting a missile out of the air is like hitting a bullet with a bullet, only harder. Technology isn't a quick or easy fix, you have to stop it at the source - it's easier to prevent someone firing a gun than stopping the bullet once it's launched. <br> <br> A modern ICBM is very hard to track; it only burns fuel for about 5 minutes, then continues to ascend for 20 minutes, reaching a height of over 1000 kilometers. A MIRVed missile will then break apart into (up to) eight separate warheads, as well as releasing chaff, reflective balloons, and decoy warheads. These warheads then fall to Earth at 4 km/s in less than two minutes, in a variable pattern (something like <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Peacekeeper-missile-testing.jpg" title="wikimedia.org" rel="nofollow"> this </a> [wikimedia.org]). That is a little under 30 minutes to see the launch, determine the ballistic course, and launch enough missiles from hundreds of miles away to attempt to intercept hundreds of real warheads amongst the greater amount of decoys and penetration aids. Oh, and some warheads can be set to detonate in the atmosphere to create an EMP effect, throwing off radar and other tracking systems. Radar and ABM sites will also be among the first targets. We have a hard enough time shooting down slow-moving single targets (the military has effective tactical anti-missile technology such as the Patriot and AEGIS, but there are orders of magnitude of difference between tactical missiles and ICBMs), but the very idea of a strategic nuclear defense is laughable. We've spent hundreds of billions of dollars on a system that we hope can take out a rogue missile or two.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends on what kind of 'solution ' you are interested in .
The U.S. already has an anti-ballistic missile system designed to stop small-scale launches ( a single missile from North Korea , an accidental launch of a Russian or Chinese missile ) .
However , there is no technology that would work in a larger-scale conflict .
Nuclear weapons and delivery methods are simply too effective .
As has been said many times , hitting a missile out of the air is like hitting a bullet with a bullet , only harder .
Technology is n't a quick or easy fix , you have to stop it at the source - it 's easier to prevent someone firing a gun than stopping the bullet once it 's launched .
A modern ICBM is very hard to track ; it only burns fuel for about 5 minutes , then continues to ascend for 20 minutes , reaching a height of over 1000 kilometers .
A MIRVed missile will then break apart into ( up to ) eight separate warheads , as well as releasing chaff , reflective balloons , and decoy warheads .
These warheads then fall to Earth at 4 km/s in less than two minutes , in a variable pattern ( something like this [ wikimedia.org ] ) .
That is a little under 30 minutes to see the launch , determine the ballistic course , and launch enough missiles from hundreds of miles away to attempt to intercept hundreds of real warheads amongst the greater amount of decoys and penetration aids .
Oh , and some warheads can be set to detonate in the atmosphere to create an EMP effect , throwing off radar and other tracking systems .
Radar and ABM sites will also be among the first targets .
We have a hard enough time shooting down slow-moving single targets ( the military has effective tactical anti-missile technology such as the Patriot and AEGIS , but there are orders of magnitude of difference between tactical missiles and ICBMs ) , but the very idea of a strategic nuclear defense is laughable .
We 've spent hundreds of billions of dollars on a system that we hope can take out a rogue missile or two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends on what kind of 'solution' you are interested in.
The U.S. already has an anti-ballistic missile system designed to stop small-scale launches (a single missile from North Korea, an accidental launch of a Russian or Chinese missile).
However, there is no technology that would work in a larger-scale conflict.
Nuclear weapons and delivery methods are simply too effective.
As has been said many times, hitting a missile out of the air is like hitting a bullet with a bullet, only harder.
Technology isn't a quick or easy fix, you have to stop it at the source - it's easier to prevent someone firing a gun than stopping the bullet once it's launched.
A modern ICBM is very hard to track; it only burns fuel for about 5 minutes, then continues to ascend for 20 minutes, reaching a height of over 1000 kilometers.
A MIRVed missile will then break apart into (up to) eight separate warheads, as well as releasing chaff, reflective balloons, and decoy warheads.
These warheads then fall to Earth at 4 km/s in less than two minutes, in a variable pattern (something like  this  [wikimedia.org]).
That is a little under 30 minutes to see the launch, determine the ballistic course, and launch enough missiles from hundreds of miles away to attempt to intercept hundreds of real warheads amongst the greater amount of decoys and penetration aids.
Oh, and some warheads can be set to detonate in the atmosphere to create an EMP effect, throwing off radar and other tracking systems.
Radar and ABM sites will also be among the first targets.
We have a hard enough time shooting down slow-moving single targets (the military has effective tactical anti-missile technology such as the Patriot and AEGIS, but there are orders of magnitude of difference between tactical missiles and ICBMs), but the very idea of a strategic nuclear defense is laughable.
We've spent hundreds of billions of dollars on a system that we hope can take out a rogue missile or two.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28609071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28611433</id>
	<title>Re:Keeping Count</title>
	<author>testpoint</author>
	<datestamp>1246994280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just curious.  Given the age of Russia's nuclear arsenal, the fact that they were practically operating a barter economy for a decade and the chaos in government leadership, have the Russians maintained these weapons so that any of them can actually be fired?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just curious .
Given the age of Russia 's nuclear arsenal , the fact that they were practically operating a barter economy for a decade and the chaos in government leadership , have the Russians maintained these weapons so that any of them can actually be fired ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just curious.
Given the age of Russia's nuclear arsenal, the fact that they were practically operating a barter economy for a decade and the chaos in government leadership, have the Russians maintained these weapons so that any of them can actually be fired?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608781</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone know</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246983960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Horseshit - it was definitively a coup. There was no rule of law involved in ousting Zelaya - and they lied about him writing a termination letter. Why would you lie if you were doing something ostensibly legal?<br>What's more, his term limit has not yet been reached, so how can you (ignorant schmuck) accuse him of refusing to leave office?<br>He did nothing whatsoever illegal or unconstitutional.<br>Zelaya wasn't breaking any laws by proposing a non-binding referenda, but what do you care - go back to your Fox "news" and leave us alone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Horseshit - it was definitively a coup .
There was no rule of law involved in ousting Zelaya - and they lied about him writing a termination letter .
Why would you lie if you were doing something ostensibly legal ? What 's more , his term limit has not yet been reached , so how can you ( ignorant schmuck ) accuse him of refusing to leave office ? He did nothing whatsoever illegal or unconstitutional.Zelaya was n't breaking any laws by proposing a non-binding referenda , but what do you care - go back to your Fox " news " and leave us alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Horseshit - it was definitively a coup.
There was no rule of law involved in ousting Zelaya - and they lied about him writing a termination letter.
Why would you lie if you were doing something ostensibly legal?What's more, his term limit has not yet been reached, so how can you (ignorant schmuck) accuse him of refusing to leave office?He did nothing whatsoever illegal or unconstitutional.Zelaya wasn't breaking any laws by proposing a non-binding referenda, but what do you care - go back to your Fox "news" and leave us alone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28610347</id>
	<title>Re:Robert Strange McNamara 1916 - 2009</title>
	<author>Ksevio</author>
	<datestamp>1246990320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Clearly you're not a listener of NPR as they devoted roughly half their airtime to him yesterday</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly you 're not a listener of NPR as they devoted roughly half their airtime to him yesterday</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly you're not a listener of NPR as they devoted roughly half their airtime to him yesterday</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608185</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone know</title>
	<author>MightyYar</author>
	<datestamp>1246981800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It keeps the momentum heading in the right direction, if nothing else. Fewer nukes is better than more nukes, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It keeps the momentum heading in the right direction , if nothing else .
Fewer nukes is better than more nukes , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It keeps the momentum heading in the right direction, if nothing else.
Fewer nukes is better than more nukes, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607909</id>
	<title>Comes up a little short</title>
	<author>hamburgler007</author>
	<datestamp>1246980540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only good thing I can say about this is perhaps it shows some good intentions.  The actual arms reduction doesn't make the world any safer.  I would much rather see international collaboration to develop technology that mitigates the effectiveness and deadliness of nuclear weapons.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only good thing I can say about this is perhaps it shows some good intentions .
The actual arms reduction does n't make the world any safer .
I would much rather see international collaboration to develop technology that mitigates the effectiveness and deadliness of nuclear weapons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only good thing I can say about this is perhaps it shows some good intentions.
The actual arms reduction doesn't make the world any safer.
I would much rather see international collaboration to develop technology that mitigates the effectiveness and deadliness of nuclear weapons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28611783</id>
	<title>Still 5,576 warheads too much!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246995540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So why exactly does anyone on this planet need those nukes? It reminds me of the Doomsday device of Dr. Strangelove.</p><p>I really with that some extraterrestrial aliens would kick all government's asses, until they wise up!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So why exactly does anyone on this planet need those nukes ?
It reminds me of the Doomsday device of Dr. Strangelove.I really with that some extraterrestrial aliens would kick all government 's asses , until they wise up !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why exactly does anyone on this planet need those nukes?
It reminds me of the Doomsday device of Dr. Strangelove.I really with that some extraterrestrial aliens would kick all government's asses, until they wise up!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28619745</id>
	<title>Re:Robert Strange McNamara 1916 - 2009</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1247056800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People remember him, partly for sending hundreds of thousands of American troops to the slaughter that Vietnam turned into. People rarely laud your name for choosing to lead a war of attrition on an enemy we hardly even care about by sending more and more of your own people until all of the enemies have been killed with little regard for how many of your troops die in the process.

</p><p>How many people did Michael Jackson send to their death? Do we even know for sure if he did anything perverted during his sleepovers with his child friends? Sure he was one weird motherfucker, but I don't think anyone can say with certainty that he was a pervert.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People remember him , partly for sending hundreds of thousands of American troops to the slaughter that Vietnam turned into .
People rarely laud your name for choosing to lead a war of attrition on an enemy we hardly even care about by sending more and more of your own people until all of the enemies have been killed with little regard for how many of your troops die in the process .
How many people did Michael Jackson send to their death ?
Do we even know for sure if he did anything perverted during his sleepovers with his child friends ?
Sure he was one weird motherfucker , but I do n't think anyone can say with certainty that he was a pervert .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People remember him, partly for sending hundreds of thousands of American troops to the slaughter that Vietnam turned into.
People rarely laud your name for choosing to lead a war of attrition on an enemy we hardly even care about by sending more and more of your own people until all of the enemies have been killed with little regard for how many of your troops die in the process.
How many people did Michael Jackson send to their death?
Do we even know for sure if he did anything perverted during his sleepovers with his child friends?
Sure he was one weird motherfucker, but I don't think anyone can say with certainty that he was a pervert.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28609009</id>
	<title>Re:Robert Strange McNamara 1916 - 2009</title>
	<author>funkatron</author>
	<datestamp>1246984920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He got news coverage last night. Seemed like a good excuse for a beer. The loss of someone partially responsible for one of the most pointless periods of scumbaggery in modern history deserves a little celebration.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He got news coverage last night .
Seemed like a good excuse for a beer .
The loss of someone partially responsible for one of the most pointless periods of scumbaggery in modern history deserves a little celebration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He got news coverage last night.
Seemed like a good excuse for a beer.
The loss of someone partially responsible for one of the most pointless periods of scumbaggery in modern history deserves a little celebration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28609681</id>
	<title>Re:Robert Strange McNamara 1916 - 2009</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1246987500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay.<br>1. I am not and have never really been a  fan of MJ but that fact that you must thrust him even into this shows you are part of the problem of which you speak. He is dead and I feel sorry for his family.<br>2. McNamara sucked. No really he was a walking talking disaster area. The complete re writing of history around JFK drives me nuts. McNamara and JFK over saw the largest increase in the nuclear stock pile in history. He made no agreements involving arms control except the Nuclear Test Band Treaty which was a good thing I will give you.<br>Eisenhower tried to talk the the USSR about weapons but the U2 over flight really killed it. Eisenhower was really trying to limit the growth in arms and for some reason people forget that Kennedy ran on "The Missile Gap" to show that the republicans where weak on defense.<br>Then we have the Bay of Pigs disaster.<br>And the Cuban Missile Crisis<br>Then we have Vietnam.<br>McNamara's strange ideas in weapons development. He thought that since Ford could make several different models from one car the military could make a Navy fighter and an Air Force bomber out of the same plane.  That actually produced a good bomber for the Air Force even if it was more expensive and complex than it needed to be. The fighter got canned after a lot of money was poured into it.<br>Over all I agree with the idea that in general is a stupid waste of effort. Every thing else is just as silly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay.1 .
I am not and have never really been a fan of MJ but that fact that you must thrust him even into this shows you are part of the problem of which you speak .
He is dead and I feel sorry for his family.2 .
McNamara sucked .
No really he was a walking talking disaster area .
The complete re writing of history around JFK drives me nuts .
McNamara and JFK over saw the largest increase in the nuclear stock pile in history .
He made no agreements involving arms control except the Nuclear Test Band Treaty which was a good thing I will give you.Eisenhower tried to talk the the USSR about weapons but the U2 over flight really killed it .
Eisenhower was really trying to limit the growth in arms and for some reason people forget that Kennedy ran on " The Missile Gap " to show that the republicans where weak on defense.Then we have the Bay of Pigs disaster.And the Cuban Missile CrisisThen we have Vietnam.McNamara 's strange ideas in weapons development .
He thought that since Ford could make several different models from one car the military could make a Navy fighter and an Air Force bomber out of the same plane .
That actually produced a good bomber for the Air Force even if it was more expensive and complex than it needed to be .
The fighter got canned after a lot of money was poured into it.Over all I agree with the idea that in general is a stupid waste of effort .
Every thing else is just as silly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay.1.
I am not and have never really been a  fan of MJ but that fact that you must thrust him even into this shows you are part of the problem of which you speak.
He is dead and I feel sorry for his family.2.
McNamara sucked.
No really he was a walking talking disaster area.
The complete re writing of history around JFK drives me nuts.
McNamara and JFK over saw the largest increase in the nuclear stock pile in history.
He made no agreements involving arms control except the Nuclear Test Band Treaty which was a good thing I will give you.Eisenhower tried to talk the the USSR about weapons but the U2 over flight really killed it.
Eisenhower was really trying to limit the growth in arms and for some reason people forget that Kennedy ran on "The Missile Gap" to show that the republicans where weak on defense.Then we have the Bay of Pigs disaster.And the Cuban Missile CrisisThen we have Vietnam.McNamara's strange ideas in weapons development.
He thought that since Ford could make several different models from one car the military could make a Navy fighter and an Air Force bomber out of the same plane.
That actually produced a good bomber for the Air Force even if it was more expensive and complex than it needed to be.
The fighter got canned after a lot of money was poured into it.Over all I agree with the idea that in general is a stupid waste of effort.
Every thing else is just as silly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606927</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone know</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1246976760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Diplomacy.  It's basically two new administrations getting to know each other in areas that they more or less agree on.  The US can reduce stockpiles a long way with no significant military compromise, and Russia just needs to reduce its costs.  And it looks very good to the masses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Diplomacy .
It 's basically two new administrations getting to know each other in areas that they more or less agree on .
The US can reduce stockpiles a long way with no significant military compromise , and Russia just needs to reduce its costs .
And it looks very good to the masses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Diplomacy.
It's basically two new administrations getting to know each other in areas that they more or less agree on.
The US can reduce stockpiles a long way with no significant military compromise, and Russia just needs to reduce its costs.
And it looks very good to the masses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28613957</id>
	<title>Re:Down to 95\% of the world's arsenals!</title>
	<author>amorsen</author>
	<datestamp>1246961100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They don't think about the need to defend against American nukes because they know that the US refrains from using nukes except when attacked by nukes.</p></div><p>The US has a clear nuclear first-strike policy. Nuclear weapons (specifically bunker-busters) were definitely considered for both Afghanistan and Iraq, but they were (fortunately, IMHO) ultimately not used.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't think about the need to defend against American nukes because they know that the US refrains from using nukes except when attacked by nukes.The US has a clear nuclear first-strike policy .
Nuclear weapons ( specifically bunker-busters ) were definitely considered for both Afghanistan and Iraq , but they were ( fortunately , IMHO ) ultimately not used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't think about the need to defend against American nukes because they know that the US refrains from using nukes except when attacked by nukes.The US has a clear nuclear first-strike policy.
Nuclear weapons (specifically bunker-busters) were definitely considered for both Afghanistan and Iraq, but they were (fortunately, IMHO) ultimately not used.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28616877</id>
	<title>Somewhere, Hideo Kojima and Solid Snake...</title>
	<author>Money for Nothin'</author>
	<datestamp>1246979040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...are simultaneously jumping for joy and laughing cynically, as the terms of the original START treaty were a distant goal from the current-state in 1998, when the original <i>MGS</i> game was released, and which informed us all of the sad state of nuclear weapons disarmament agreements.</p><p>What was it - some 26,000 nuclear warheads remained between the U.S. and Russia in 1998, whereas the START II treaty called for a maximum of 6,000 per nation? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START\_I)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...are simultaneously jumping for joy and laughing cynically , as the terms of the original START treaty were a distant goal from the current-state in 1998 , when the original MGS game was released , and which informed us all of the sad state of nuclear weapons disarmament agreements.What was it - some 26,000 nuclear warheads remained between the U.S. and Russia in 1998 , whereas the START II treaty called for a maximum of 6,000 per nation ?
( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START \ _I )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...are simultaneously jumping for joy and laughing cynically, as the terms of the original START treaty were a distant goal from the current-state in 1998, when the original MGS game was released, and which informed us all of the sad state of nuclear weapons disarmament agreements.What was it - some 26,000 nuclear warheads remained between the U.S. and Russia in 1998, whereas the START II treaty called for a maximum of 6,000 per nation?
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START\_I)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606785</id>
	<title>Re:Fallout</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246975920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>the way Russia looks like a democratically elected government but is actually run by a bunch of organized criminals, i fear that you might get your wasteland</htmltext>
<tokenext>the way Russia looks like a democratically elected government but is actually run by a bunch of organized criminals , i fear that you might get your wasteland</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the way Russia looks like a democratically elected government but is actually run by a bunch of organized criminals, i fear that you might get your wasteland</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28617471</id>
	<title>There must be money in it...</title>
	<author>akayani</author>
	<datestamp>1246985040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The US built these devices because corporations insisted they were necessary (necessary for profit) so we can only assume that they are being dismantled because someone is making money from it.<br><br>This has always been a lot less to do with national security than it was good salesmanship by arms manufacturers. There are clearly products that are more profitable to make that are more likely to be blown up and need to be replaced.<br><br>There is no cash in servicing nuclear weapons but there are a few dollars in pulling them apart.<br><br>The safety difference to the world in countries owning 100 - 20,000 nukes is bugger all. It's a logarithmic curve where 500 is just as insane as 10,000 or very insane.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US built these devices because corporations insisted they were necessary ( necessary for profit ) so we can only assume that they are being dismantled because someone is making money from it.This has always been a lot less to do with national security than it was good salesmanship by arms manufacturers .
There are clearly products that are more profitable to make that are more likely to be blown up and need to be replaced.There is no cash in servicing nuclear weapons but there are a few dollars in pulling them apart.The safety difference to the world in countries owning 100 - 20,000 nukes is bugger all .
It 's a logarithmic curve where 500 is just as insane as 10,000 or very insane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US built these devices because corporations insisted they were necessary (necessary for profit) so we can only assume that they are being dismantled because someone is making money from it.This has always been a lot less to do with national security than it was good salesmanship by arms manufacturers.
There are clearly products that are more profitable to make that are more likely to be blown up and need to be replaced.There is no cash in servicing nuclear weapons but there are a few dollars in pulling them apart.The safety difference to the world in countries owning 100 - 20,000 nukes is bugger all.
It's a logarithmic curve where 500 is just as insane as 10,000 or very insane.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607551</id>
	<title>Re:Down to 95\% of the world's arsenals!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246979280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Our presidents get in trouble for misspeaking or forgetting to bow or not dispensing enough foreign aid; the leaders of the aforementioned countries give speeches advocating genocide... to thunderous applause."</p><p>The American leaders never advocate genocide publicly, but it happens all the same.</p><p>See Guatemala (150,000 dead to protect commercial interests), Cambodia (750,000 dead through bombing), Afghanistan etc.</p><p>Which is worse, to be honest and threaten genocide, or to lie and commit genocide?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Our presidents get in trouble for misspeaking or forgetting to bow or not dispensing enough foreign aid ; the leaders of the aforementioned countries give speeches advocating genocide... to thunderous applause .
" The American leaders never advocate genocide publicly , but it happens all the same.See Guatemala ( 150,000 dead to protect commercial interests ) , Cambodia ( 750,000 dead through bombing ) , Afghanistan etc.Which is worse , to be honest and threaten genocide , or to lie and commit genocide ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Our presidents get in trouble for misspeaking or forgetting to bow or not dispensing enough foreign aid; the leaders of the aforementioned countries give speeches advocating genocide... to thunderous applause.
"The American leaders never advocate genocide publicly, but it happens all the same.See Guatemala (150,000 dead to protect commercial interests), Cambodia (750,000 dead through bombing), Afghanistan etc.Which is worse, to be honest and threaten genocide, or to lie and commit genocide?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606827</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606567</id>
	<title>Robert Strange McNamara 1916 - 2009</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1246974780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The indefinite combinations of human fallibility and nuclear weapons will lead to the destruction of nations. - Robert S. McNamara</p></div><p>Slightly offtopic but in high school I read a few books by Robert S McNamara who <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/us/07mcnamara.html?\_r=1" title="nytimes.com" rel="nofollow">died yesterday</a> [nytimes.com].  It's too bad he didn't get to see this agreement between old enemies.  He was Secretary of Defense from 1961-1968.  Although I did not agree with a lot of his views he shaped a lot of the nuclear buildup during the cold war.  I believe he was responsible for abandoning Eisenhower's policy of massive retaliation in the event of a nuclear war.  He was first tasked by Kennedy of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout\_Protection" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">explaining nuclear fallout</a> [wikipedia.org].  McNamara favored non-nuclear power and one of the books I read "In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam" shed a lot of light on the Vietnam war for me.  <br> <br>

If you haven't seen Erol Morris' "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Fog\_of\_War" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">The Fog of War</a> [wikipedia.org]" you should.  <br> <br>

Rest in peace Robert Strange McNamara.  You revealed to me the horrors that leadership must face during war.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The indefinite combinations of human fallibility and nuclear weapons will lead to the destruction of nations .
- Robert S. McNamaraSlightly offtopic but in high school I read a few books by Robert S McNamara who died yesterday [ nytimes.com ] .
It 's too bad he did n't get to see this agreement between old enemies .
He was Secretary of Defense from 1961-1968 .
Although I did not agree with a lot of his views he shaped a lot of the nuclear buildup during the cold war .
I believe he was responsible for abandoning Eisenhower 's policy of massive retaliation in the event of a nuclear war .
He was first tasked by Kennedy of explaining nuclear fallout [ wikipedia.org ] .
McNamara favored non-nuclear power and one of the books I read " In Retrospect : The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam " shed a lot of light on the Vietnam war for me .
If you have n't seen Erol Morris ' " The Fog of War [ wikipedia.org ] " you should .
Rest in peace Robert Strange McNamara .
You revealed to me the horrors that leadership must face during war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The indefinite combinations of human fallibility and nuclear weapons will lead to the destruction of nations.
- Robert S. McNamaraSlightly offtopic but in high school I read a few books by Robert S McNamara who died yesterday [nytimes.com].
It's too bad he didn't get to see this agreement between old enemies.
He was Secretary of Defense from 1961-1968.
Although I did not agree with a lot of his views he shaped a lot of the nuclear buildup during the cold war.
I believe he was responsible for abandoning Eisenhower's policy of massive retaliation in the event of a nuclear war.
He was first tasked by Kennedy of explaining nuclear fallout [wikipedia.org].
McNamara favored non-nuclear power and one of the books I read "In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam" shed a lot of light on the Vietnam war for me.
If you haven't seen Erol Morris' "The Fog of War [wikipedia.org]" you should.
Rest in peace Robert Strange McNamara.
You revealed to me the horrors that leadership must face during war.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607291</id>
	<title>Re:Down to 95\% of the world's arsenals!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246978320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>our leaders are held to certain standards. Our presidents get in trouble for misspeaking or forgetting to bow or not dispensing enough foreign aid</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, "certain" standards.  Forgetting to say "God bless the separation of Church and State", sure, 10 points from Gryffindor.  Invading the fuck out of a sovereign nation that posed no threat at all, direct or indirect, to the USA, not so much trouble.

</p><p>Tell a big enough lie, or start a big enough war, and no one dares call you on it.  You're a <em>Statesman</em>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>our leaders are held to certain standards .
Our presidents get in trouble for misspeaking or forgetting to bow or not dispensing enough foreign aidYes , " certain " standards .
Forgetting to say " God bless the separation of Church and State " , sure , 10 points from Gryffindor .
Invading the fuck out of a sovereign nation that posed no threat at all , direct or indirect , to the USA , not so much trouble .
Tell a big enough lie , or start a big enough war , and no one dares call you on it .
You 're a Statesman .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>our leaders are held to certain standards.
Our presidents get in trouble for misspeaking or forgetting to bow or not dispensing enough foreign aidYes, "certain" standards.
Forgetting to say "God bless the separation of Church and State", sure, 10 points from Gryffindor.
Invading the fuck out of a sovereign nation that posed no threat at all, direct or indirect, to the USA, not so much trouble.
Tell a big enough lie, or start a big enough war, and no one dares call you on it.
You're a Statesman.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606827</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606879</id>
	<title>Keeping Count</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1246976520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>START requires only that the weapons be deactivated, not destroyed. The US currently has over 4,000 "deactivated" nuclear weapons. Believe someone who used to shove them up a Buff's (B-52) belly, they can be reactivated in short order.</p><p>Also, START is 'Strategic' Arms Reduction Treaty. It says nothing about tacticals, either battlefield or ship based weapons, or EMP devices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>START requires only that the weapons be deactivated , not destroyed .
The US currently has over 4,000 " deactivated " nuclear weapons .
Believe someone who used to shove them up a Buff 's ( B-52 ) belly , they can be reactivated in short order.Also , START is 'Strategic ' Arms Reduction Treaty .
It says nothing about tacticals , either battlefield or ship based weapons , or EMP devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>START requires only that the weapons be deactivated, not destroyed.
The US currently has over 4,000 "deactivated" nuclear weapons.
Believe someone who used to shove them up a Buff's (B-52) belly, they can be reactivated in short order.Also, START is 'Strategic' Arms Reduction Treaty.
It says nothing about tacticals, either battlefield or ship based weapons, or EMP devices.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28610557</id>
	<title>Re:Down to 95\% of the world's arsenals!</title>
	<author>icebrain</author>
	<datestamp>1246991040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you.</p><p>It always amazes me how many people truthfully and honestly believe that disarming, stripping one's defenses, baring one's metaphorical (or physical!) throat to an an aggressive assailant will somehow move him to compassion or pity, that he is just really a poor misguided soul who threatens and hurts other people but doesn't really want to.</p><p>People like this, whether they're hardened street thugs and rapists, drug or Mafia bosses, terrorist leaders, or brutal dictators, are not nice people.  They don't secretly want others to just be nice to them.  They want power and spoils, and they have no qualms about hurting others to get them.  They use brutal tactics to suppress their opponents and gain/maintain their positions.  They speak and understand only the language of power and force, and seek only their own gain.  Offers of appeasement, self-sacrifice, and mere words are simply accepted as giveaways of what they seek, a temporary means of satisfying their naive opponents while they maneuver for greater advantage to themselves.</p><p>Appeasement, unilateral acts of weakness, and surrender do not keep the mugger, rapist, or murderer from hurting you.  They do not convince the street gangs to go home and leave others alone.  They do not placate the terrorist and dissuade him from bombing transit systems and markets.  They do not make the junta or the dictator feed their people or stop "purging" those who disagree with them.  Rather, they encourage such acts by demonstrating that nobody has the balls to stop them.  A normal, reasonable person will respond to kindness and generousity in kind, recognizing that it benefits everyone--but these are not reasonable or normal people.  And they are not little children, who do what they're told by mommy and daddy and play nice with others--they frankly don't care about others at all, only themselves.</p><p>I don't advocate the use of force as a first option, nor the general application of preemtive force.  Diplomacy, sanctions, and other peaceful measures are obviously a hell of a lot more desirable.  But you have to remember that those alone will not stop these people and prevent further harm.  They must be removed from that position, by peaceful negotiation or surrender or by force if absolutely necessary.  You must have the force to back up your demands, and you must be willing to use it when you say you will.</p><p>There is nothing morally wrong with using directed force in self defense to stop an imminent threat.  It does not "provoke or "escalate the situation"; that was done when the first threat was issued.  I'd even argue that <i>not</i> defending oneself is immoral, at least when the means and opportunity are available.</p><p>I just don't get it.  Why do so many people insist on denigrating themselves, decrying their wrongs (and even their right actions!) in support of others' actions which are far worse?  Why is the person who stops a horrible act worse than the one trying to commit it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you.It always amazes me how many people truthfully and honestly believe that disarming , stripping one 's defenses , baring one 's metaphorical ( or physical !
) throat to an an aggressive assailant will somehow move him to compassion or pity , that he is just really a poor misguided soul who threatens and hurts other people but does n't really want to.People like this , whether they 're hardened street thugs and rapists , drug or Mafia bosses , terrorist leaders , or brutal dictators , are not nice people .
They do n't secretly want others to just be nice to them .
They want power and spoils , and they have no qualms about hurting others to get them .
They use brutal tactics to suppress their opponents and gain/maintain their positions .
They speak and understand only the language of power and force , and seek only their own gain .
Offers of appeasement , self-sacrifice , and mere words are simply accepted as giveaways of what they seek , a temporary means of satisfying their naive opponents while they maneuver for greater advantage to themselves.Appeasement , unilateral acts of weakness , and surrender do not keep the mugger , rapist , or murderer from hurting you .
They do not convince the street gangs to go home and leave others alone .
They do not placate the terrorist and dissuade him from bombing transit systems and markets .
They do not make the junta or the dictator feed their people or stop " purging " those who disagree with them .
Rather , they encourage such acts by demonstrating that nobody has the balls to stop them .
A normal , reasonable person will respond to kindness and generousity in kind , recognizing that it benefits everyone--but these are not reasonable or normal people .
And they are not little children , who do what they 're told by mommy and daddy and play nice with others--they frankly do n't care about others at all , only themselves.I do n't advocate the use of force as a first option , nor the general application of preemtive force .
Diplomacy , sanctions , and other peaceful measures are obviously a hell of a lot more desirable .
But you have to remember that those alone will not stop these people and prevent further harm .
They must be removed from that position , by peaceful negotiation or surrender or by force if absolutely necessary .
You must have the force to back up your demands , and you must be willing to use it when you say you will.There is nothing morally wrong with using directed force in self defense to stop an imminent threat .
It does not " provoke or " escalate the situation " ; that was done when the first threat was issued .
I 'd even argue that not defending oneself is immoral , at least when the means and opportunity are available.I just do n't get it .
Why do so many people insist on denigrating themselves , decrying their wrongs ( and even their right actions !
) in support of others ' actions which are far worse ?
Why is the person who stops a horrible act worse than the one trying to commit it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you.It always amazes me how many people truthfully and honestly believe that disarming, stripping one's defenses, baring one's metaphorical (or physical!
) throat to an an aggressive assailant will somehow move him to compassion or pity, that he is just really a poor misguided soul who threatens and hurts other people but doesn't really want to.People like this, whether they're hardened street thugs and rapists, drug or Mafia bosses, terrorist leaders, or brutal dictators, are not nice people.
They don't secretly want others to just be nice to them.
They want power and spoils, and they have no qualms about hurting others to get them.
They use brutal tactics to suppress their opponents and gain/maintain their positions.
They speak and understand only the language of power and force, and seek only their own gain.
Offers of appeasement, self-sacrifice, and mere words are simply accepted as giveaways of what they seek, a temporary means of satisfying their naive opponents while they maneuver for greater advantage to themselves.Appeasement, unilateral acts of weakness, and surrender do not keep the mugger, rapist, or murderer from hurting you.
They do not convince the street gangs to go home and leave others alone.
They do not placate the terrorist and dissuade him from bombing transit systems and markets.
They do not make the junta or the dictator feed their people or stop "purging" those who disagree with them.
Rather, they encourage such acts by demonstrating that nobody has the balls to stop them.
A normal, reasonable person will respond to kindness and generousity in kind, recognizing that it benefits everyone--but these are not reasonable or normal people.
And they are not little children, who do what they're told by mommy and daddy and play nice with others--they frankly don't care about others at all, only themselves.I don't advocate the use of force as a first option, nor the general application of preemtive force.
Diplomacy, sanctions, and other peaceful measures are obviously a hell of a lot more desirable.
But you have to remember that those alone will not stop these people and prevent further harm.
They must be removed from that position, by peaceful negotiation or surrender or by force if absolutely necessary.
You must have the force to back up your demands, and you must be willing to use it when you say you will.There is nothing morally wrong with using directed force in self defense to stop an imminent threat.
It does not "provoke or "escalate the situation"; that was done when the first threat was issued.
I'd even argue that not defending oneself is immoral, at least when the means and opportunity are available.I just don't get it.
Why do so many people insist on denigrating themselves, decrying their wrongs (and even their right actions!
) in support of others' actions which are far worse?
Why is the person who stops a horrible act worse than the one trying to commit it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28613217</id>
	<title>Re:Robert Strange McNamara 1916 - 2009</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1246958160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>    You forgot drug addict and race traitor. Not only was Jackson trying to turn white he only married white girls. Frankly he was effeminate, a child molester a drug addict and all around creep.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; That just goes to show us all what can happen in life as he was one of the cutest little kids I've ever seen when he was a boy with the Jackson Five.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot drug addict and race traitor .
Not only was Jackson trying to turn white he only married white girls .
Frankly he was effeminate , a child molester a drug addict and all around creep .
        That just goes to show us all what can happen in life as he was one of the cutest little kids I 've ever seen when he was a boy with the Jackson Five .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>    You forgot drug addict and race traitor.
Not only was Jackson trying to turn white he only married white girls.
Frankly he was effeminate, a child molester a drug addict and all around creep.
        That just goes to show us all what can happen in life as he was one of the cutest little kids I've ever seen when he was a boy with the Jackson Five.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607173</id>
	<title>Re:Down to 95\% of the world's arsenals!</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1246977840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>One madman with a nuke is worse than a peaceful leader with a thousand nukes. </i></p><p>One nuke in American hands justifies the arsenal of every madman out there.  As long as America holds a single nuke, any dictator can point to it and argue that he has a sovereign right to self-defense against American aggression. Do as I say, not as I do never works.  It's far more dangerous to have these things than to not have them.  We need a clear, unambiguous policy that nukes are absolutely forbidden for every state with no double standards.  Only then will anyone take disarmament seriously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One madman with a nuke is worse than a peaceful leader with a thousand nukes .
One nuke in American hands justifies the arsenal of every madman out there .
As long as America holds a single nuke , any dictator can point to it and argue that he has a sovereign right to self-defense against American aggression .
Do as I say , not as I do never works .
It 's far more dangerous to have these things than to not have them .
We need a clear , unambiguous policy that nukes are absolutely forbidden for every state with no double standards .
Only then will anyone take disarmament seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One madman with a nuke is worse than a peaceful leader with a thousand nukes.
One nuke in American hands justifies the arsenal of every madman out there.
As long as America holds a single nuke, any dictator can point to it and argue that he has a sovereign right to self-defense against American aggression.
Do as I say, not as I do never works.
It's far more dangerous to have these things than to not have them.
We need a clear, unambiguous policy that nukes are absolutely forbidden for every state with no double standards.
Only then will anyone take disarmament seriously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606827</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28613567</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome Back Carter...</title>
	<author>hargrand</author>
	<datestamp>1246959480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course after I read <a href="http://www.nypost.com/seven/07072009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/desperate\_deal\_177977.htm" title="nypost.com" rel="nofollow">this</a> [nypost.com] (cited above) maybe Obama signing these accords is unadulterated appeasement after all.  Who'd have thought it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course after I read this [ nypost.com ] ( cited above ) maybe Obama signing these accords is unadulterated appeasement after all .
Who 'd have thought it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course after I read this [nypost.com] (cited above) maybe Obama signing these accords is unadulterated appeasement after all.
Who'd have thought it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606795</id>
	<title>So does this mean...</title>
	<author>scubamage</author>
	<datestamp>1246975980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...that America and Russia don't want to set the world on fire - they just want to start a flame in your heart?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...that America and Russia do n't want to set the world on fire - they just want to start a flame in your heart ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that America and Russia don't want to set the world on fire - they just want to start a flame in your heart?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28615999</id>
	<title>Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians</title>
	<author>Falconhell</author>
	<datestamp>1246971840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please do not reply to this stupid racist troll, he posts this crap every few days.</p><p>Ignoring these assholes is the way to go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please do not reply to this stupid racist troll , he posts this crap every few days.Ignoring these assholes is the way to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please do not reply to this stupid racist troll, he posts this crap every few days.Ignoring these assholes is the way to go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606813</id>
	<title>Anyone know</title>
	<author>Alarindris</author>
	<datestamp>1246976100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly what the difference between 1500 and 2200 nukes is?  What has that really accomplished?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly what the difference between 1500 and 2200 nukes is ?
What has that really accomplished ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly what the difference between 1500 and 2200 nukes is?
What has that really accomplished?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28610961</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone know</title>
	<author>gacl</author>
	<datestamp>1246992540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Under the current Honduran law only congress can change the constitution (read: the "privileged class") and Zelaya wanted to allow for the Honduran people to be able to do that. The question is: How can that be done without violating the law?
<br>
True, he probably was going propose to do away with the limits to re-election but that's for the Honduran people to decide.
<br>
Remember that Chavez also tried to extend his term and was rejected by the referendum, and so did Uribe in Colombia. But funny that when (left-wing) Chavez did it the press had a field day, but (right-wing) Uribe's bid for limitless terms is not news.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Under the current Honduran law only congress can change the constitution ( read : the " privileged class " ) and Zelaya wanted to allow for the Honduran people to be able to do that .
The question is : How can that be done without violating the law ?
True , he probably was going propose to do away with the limits to re-election but that 's for the Honduran people to decide .
Remember that Chavez also tried to extend his term and was rejected by the referendum , and so did Uribe in Colombia .
But funny that when ( left-wing ) Chavez did it the press had a field day , but ( right-wing ) Uribe 's bid for limitless terms is not news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Under the current Honduran law only congress can change the constitution (read: the "privileged class") and Zelaya wanted to allow for the Honduran people to be able to do that.
The question is: How can that be done without violating the law?
True, he probably was going propose to do away with the limits to re-election but that's for the Honduran people to decide.
Remember that Chavez also tried to extend his term and was rejected by the referendum, and so did Uribe in Colombia.
But funny that when (left-wing) Chavez did it the press had a field day, but (right-wing) Uribe's bid for limitless terms is not news.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607153</id>
	<title>Re:Robert Strange McNamara 1916 - 2009</title>
	<author>FesterDaFelcher</author>
	<datestamp>1246977780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's too bad he didn't get to see this agreement between old enemies.</p></div><p>  Srlsy?  It's not like this is the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START\_I" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">first</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START\_II" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">such</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SORT" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">agreement</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's too bad he did n't get to see this agreement between old enemies .
Srlsy ? It 's not like this is the first [ wikipedia.org ] such [ wikipedia.org ] agreement [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's too bad he didn't get to see this agreement between old enemies.
Srlsy?  It's not like this is the first [wikipedia.org] such [wikipedia.org] agreement [wikipedia.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608325</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone know</title>
	<author>pedestrian crossing</author>
	<datestamp>1246982220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Such hogwash.</p><p>Just like bombing the "aspirin factory" in the Sudan was a "distraction" from Monica Lewinsky.  Turns out, Bin Laden was hanging out in Sudan at the time.</p><p>You can't come up with anything better than this partisan horseshit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Such hogwash.Just like bombing the " aspirin factory " in the Sudan was a " distraction " from Monica Lewinsky .
Turns out , Bin Laden was hanging out in Sudan at the time.You ca n't come up with anything better than this partisan horseshit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Such hogwash.Just like bombing the "aspirin factory" in the Sudan was a "distraction" from Monica Lewinsky.
Turns out, Bin Laden was hanging out in Sudan at the time.You can't come up with anything better than this partisan horseshit?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28616319</id>
	<title>Re:Down to 95\% of the world's arsenals!</title>
	<author>Falconhell</author>
	<datestamp>1246974360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Abso-fuckin-lutelely.</p><p>Well said Sir.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Abso-fuckin-lutelely.Well said Sir .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Abso-fuckin-lutelely.Well said Sir.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607679</id>
	<title>Re:Robert Strange McNamara 1916 - 2009</title>
	<author>bogjobber</author>
	<datestamp>1246979820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In case you did not know, the massive nuclear buildup by the US in the 1950's and 1960's was largely based on incomplete intelligence and a great deal of incompetence by the Eisenhower and (much less so) the Kennedy administrations.  Although McNamara recognized that the US had a large advantage in both nuclear warheads and delivery systems, he still continued the massive buildup in nuclear weapons started by Eisenhower and pushed the idea of mutually assured destruction.  It led to the greatest period of nuclear tension we ever had, and almost led us to nuclear war.  </p><p>In the 1950's the US thought the Soviets were greatly increasing their nuclear arsenal in order to gain first strike capabilities.  This was false and not supported by strong intelligence, and many in the Eisenhower administration did not take proper precautions to ensure this was correct.  The US initiated a period of nuclear proliferation that was understandably viewed by the Soviets as an attempt to gain first strike capability, and they quickly followed suit with their own nuclear buildup.</p><p>Mr. McNamara did not abandon the idea of massive retaliation, he actually advanced it.  He said himself said (paraphrasing) that it was pure luck that we did not end up in a nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis.  He also continued the ludicrous notion of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino\_theory" title="wikipedia.org">domino theory</a> [wikipedia.org] which led to the escalation of the Vietnam War under his command.  </p><p>Also, (taken from the NY Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/04/23/daily/mcnamara-bernstein.html" title="nytimes.com">book review</a> [nytimes.com] of his autobiography) he realized relatively early in the Vietnam war that it could not be won by military force, but did not fight for his opinion and didn't take a public stance on that position until the 1990's.  He and the Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon administrations destroyed the common trust and confidence in our government, which still has far-reaching consequences today.  He oversaw one of the largest expansions of the US military in history, which can be directly traced to our ridiculous defense policy and budget today.</p><p>Mr. McNamara was a brilliant man, but he is a symbol of how arrogance and loyalty to authority dragged our country to the brink of destruction.  Combined with his (and the rest of the government's) mismanagement of the Vietnam War, Mr. McNamara is certainly not a politician that will be missed by me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In case you did not know , the massive nuclear buildup by the US in the 1950 's and 1960 's was largely based on incomplete intelligence and a great deal of incompetence by the Eisenhower and ( much less so ) the Kennedy administrations .
Although McNamara recognized that the US had a large advantage in both nuclear warheads and delivery systems , he still continued the massive buildup in nuclear weapons started by Eisenhower and pushed the idea of mutually assured destruction .
It led to the greatest period of nuclear tension we ever had , and almost led us to nuclear war .
In the 1950 's the US thought the Soviets were greatly increasing their nuclear arsenal in order to gain first strike capabilities .
This was false and not supported by strong intelligence , and many in the Eisenhower administration did not take proper precautions to ensure this was correct .
The US initiated a period of nuclear proliferation that was understandably viewed by the Soviets as an attempt to gain first strike capability , and they quickly followed suit with their own nuclear buildup.Mr .
McNamara did not abandon the idea of massive retaliation , he actually advanced it .
He said himself said ( paraphrasing ) that it was pure luck that we did not end up in a nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis .
He also continued the ludicrous notion of the domino theory [ wikipedia.org ] which led to the escalation of the Vietnam War under his command .
Also , ( taken from the NY Times book review [ nytimes.com ] of his autobiography ) he realized relatively early in the Vietnam war that it could not be won by military force , but did not fight for his opinion and did n't take a public stance on that position until the 1990 's .
He and the Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon administrations destroyed the common trust and confidence in our government , which still has far-reaching consequences today .
He oversaw one of the largest expansions of the US military in history , which can be directly traced to our ridiculous defense policy and budget today.Mr .
McNamara was a brilliant man , but he is a symbol of how arrogance and loyalty to authority dragged our country to the brink of destruction .
Combined with his ( and the rest of the government 's ) mismanagement of the Vietnam War , Mr. McNamara is certainly not a politician that will be missed by me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In case you did not know, the massive nuclear buildup by the US in the 1950's and 1960's was largely based on incomplete intelligence and a great deal of incompetence by the Eisenhower and (much less so) the Kennedy administrations.
Although McNamara recognized that the US had a large advantage in both nuclear warheads and delivery systems, he still continued the massive buildup in nuclear weapons started by Eisenhower and pushed the idea of mutually assured destruction.
It led to the greatest period of nuclear tension we ever had, and almost led us to nuclear war.
In the 1950's the US thought the Soviets were greatly increasing their nuclear arsenal in order to gain first strike capabilities.
This was false and not supported by strong intelligence, and many in the Eisenhower administration did not take proper precautions to ensure this was correct.
The US initiated a period of nuclear proliferation that was understandably viewed by the Soviets as an attempt to gain first strike capability, and they quickly followed suit with their own nuclear buildup.Mr.
McNamara did not abandon the idea of massive retaliation, he actually advanced it.
He said himself said (paraphrasing) that it was pure luck that we did not end up in a nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis.
He also continued the ludicrous notion of the domino theory [wikipedia.org] which led to the escalation of the Vietnam War under his command.
Also, (taken from the NY Times book review [nytimes.com] of his autobiography) he realized relatively early in the Vietnam war that it could not be won by military force, but did not fight for his opinion and didn't take a public stance on that position until the 1990's.
He and the Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon administrations destroyed the common trust and confidence in our government, which still has far-reaching consequences today.
He oversaw one of the largest expansions of the US military in history, which can be directly traced to our ridiculous defense policy and budget today.Mr.
McNamara was a brilliant man, but he is a symbol of how arrogance and loyalty to authority dragged our country to the brink of destruction.
Combined with his (and the rest of the government's) mismanagement of the Vietnam War, Mr. McNamara is certainly not a politician that will be missed by me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28610101</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone know</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246989180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are going to have to cite this.  Everything I have seen and read says the same exact thing: He was ousted at gunpoint.  If they had impeached him (or whatever) no-one would be whining about it right now and everyone would move on.

If a sitting president breaks the law you charge them and convict them, you don't point a gun at there head and install a new leader without a democratic process.  Sheesh.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are going to have to cite this .
Everything I have seen and read says the same exact thing : He was ousted at gunpoint .
If they had impeached him ( or whatever ) no-one would be whining about it right now and everyone would move on .
If a sitting president breaks the law you charge them and convict them , you do n't point a gun at there head and install a new leader without a democratic process .
Sheesh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are going to have to cite this.
Everything I have seen and read says the same exact thing: He was ousted at gunpoint.
If they had impeached him (or whatever) no-one would be whining about it right now and everyone would move on.
If a sitting president breaks the law you charge them and convict them, you don't point a gun at there head and install a new leader without a democratic process.
Sheesh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28616707</id>
	<title>Re:Down to 95\% of the world's arsenals!</title>
	<author>Omestes</author>
	<datestamp>1246977540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Do you really think terrorists care about the possiblity of a retributive strike? </i></p><p>More to the point, who do we retaliate against?  Lets say Osama got a nuke and deployed it in a major city in the US.  Who are we going to bomb?  Afghanistan?  Pakistan?  Neither of these countries are at fault, or probably had anything to do with the attack.  Its like if a single Canadian citizen blew up a monument in the US, can we really blame Canadia as a whole (as a country, government, or people) for the actions of an isolated nut-job?</p><p><i>Or more more fundamentally, could it \_ever\_ be a moral choice to order the launch order?</i></p><p>Since when did that ever come to play in politics?  Especially since the birth of "realpolitik" and the modern age of the ends justifying the means as a global rule.  This is especially true of the US, who never realized it wasn't really useful since the end of the Cold War, even if we keep it alive (and never learn from our mistakes).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you really think terrorists care about the possiblity of a retributive strike ?
More to the point , who do we retaliate against ?
Lets say Osama got a nuke and deployed it in a major city in the US .
Who are we going to bomb ?
Afghanistan ? Pakistan ?
Neither of these countries are at fault , or probably had anything to do with the attack .
Its like if a single Canadian citizen blew up a monument in the US , can we really blame Canadia as a whole ( as a country , government , or people ) for the actions of an isolated nut-job ? Or more more fundamentally , could it \ _ever \ _ be a moral choice to order the launch order ? Since when did that ever come to play in politics ?
Especially since the birth of " realpolitik " and the modern age of the ends justifying the means as a global rule .
This is especially true of the US , who never realized it was n't really useful since the end of the Cold War , even if we keep it alive ( and never learn from our mistakes ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you really think terrorists care about the possiblity of a retributive strike?
More to the point, who do we retaliate against?
Lets say Osama got a nuke and deployed it in a major city in the US.
Who are we going to bomb?
Afghanistan?  Pakistan?
Neither of these countries are at fault, or probably had anything to do with the attack.
Its like if a single Canadian citizen blew up a monument in the US, can we really blame Canadia as a whole (as a country, government, or people) for the actions of an isolated nut-job?Or more more fundamentally, could it \_ever\_ be a moral choice to order the launch order?Since when did that ever come to play in politics?
Especially since the birth of "realpolitik" and the modern age of the ends justifying the means as a global rule.
This is especially true of the US, who never realized it wasn't really useful since the end of the Cold War, even if we keep it alive (and never learn from our mistakes).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28618291</id>
	<title>Re:Down to 95\% of the world's arsenals!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246993200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're wrong unfortunately.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p><p>There are reports that a neutron bomb was used during the Baghdad Airport battle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're wrong unfortunately .
: ( There are reports that a neutron bomb was used during the Baghdad Airport battle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're wrong unfortunately.
:(There are reports that a neutron bomb was used during the Baghdad Airport battle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28613957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28609759</id>
	<title>Re:Really?!?</title>
	<author>smoker2</author>
	<datestamp>1246987740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Mao's policies are believed to have resulted in the death of some 20 million Chinese (as many people as are in entire countries like Australia and Taiwan) during the Great Chinese Famine, yet Mao's portrait still hangs in an honored place at the entrance to the Forbidden City.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's a very glib way of stating the matter. In fact it was not Maos policies that caused so many deaths, it was the local party members implementation of those policies that did the damage. Because each areas party tried to outdo its neighbours, too much emphasis was placed on looking busy rather than producing results. The big push for iron resulted in deforestation of wide areas around towns and villages as every household had their own foundry. But of course without firewood, people could not cook. The push for food resulted in rival villages competing to produce the biggest animals, like the apocryphal pig as big as a cow. This was obviously not sustainable, and because part of the deal was to send a proportion of the food and iron to the cities, any village who had overstated their output to impress the central party and outdo their neighbours, was left with nothing for the local people to eat.<br> <br>Mao did not do this, the people did it to themselves. And by and large they were happy to do so, as they were more free than they had ever been in history since Maos revolutionaries destroyed the ancient feudal emperors hold over them.<br> <br>I recommend reading <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wild-Swans-Three-Daughters-China/dp/0006374921/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1246984028&amp;sr=8-1" title="amazon.co.uk">Wild Swans</a> [amazon.co.uk] (ISBN 0-00-637492-1), which tells the story of the women in a family starting with the grandmother down to the grand-daughter. It begins in 1909 but from the descriptions, you would think it was the 1500s. By the end of the book, China was a superpower (1978). In less than 70 years they went from medieval to modern contemporary.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mao 's policies are believed to have resulted in the death of some 20 million Chinese ( as many people as are in entire countries like Australia and Taiwan ) during the Great Chinese Famine , yet Mao 's portrait still hangs in an honored place at the entrance to the Forbidden City.That 's a very glib way of stating the matter .
In fact it was not Maos policies that caused so many deaths , it was the local party members implementation of those policies that did the damage .
Because each areas party tried to outdo its neighbours , too much emphasis was placed on looking busy rather than producing results .
The big push for iron resulted in deforestation of wide areas around towns and villages as every household had their own foundry .
But of course without firewood , people could not cook .
The push for food resulted in rival villages competing to produce the biggest animals , like the apocryphal pig as big as a cow .
This was obviously not sustainable , and because part of the deal was to send a proportion of the food and iron to the cities , any village who had overstated their output to impress the central party and outdo their neighbours , was left with nothing for the local people to eat .
Mao did not do this , the people did it to themselves .
And by and large they were happy to do so , as they were more free than they had ever been in history since Maos revolutionaries destroyed the ancient feudal emperors hold over them .
I recommend reading Wild Swans [ amazon.co.uk ] ( ISBN 0-00-637492-1 ) , which tells the story of the women in a family starting with the grandmother down to the grand-daughter .
It begins in 1909 but from the descriptions , you would think it was the 1500s .
By the end of the book , China was a superpower ( 1978 ) .
In less than 70 years they went from medieval to modern contemporary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mao's policies are believed to have resulted in the death of some 20 million Chinese (as many people as are in entire countries like Australia and Taiwan) during the Great Chinese Famine, yet Mao's portrait still hangs in an honored place at the entrance to the Forbidden City.That's a very glib way of stating the matter.
In fact it was not Maos policies that caused so many deaths, it was the local party members implementation of those policies that did the damage.
Because each areas party tried to outdo its neighbours, too much emphasis was placed on looking busy rather than producing results.
The big push for iron resulted in deforestation of wide areas around towns and villages as every household had their own foundry.
But of course without firewood, people could not cook.
The push for food resulted in rival villages competing to produce the biggest animals, like the apocryphal pig as big as a cow.
This was obviously not sustainable, and because part of the deal was to send a proportion of the food and iron to the cities, any village who had overstated their output to impress the central party and outdo their neighbours, was left with nothing for the local people to eat.
Mao did not do this, the people did it to themselves.
And by and large they were happy to do so, as they were more free than they had ever been in history since Maos revolutionaries destroyed the ancient feudal emperors hold over them.
I recommend reading Wild Swans [amazon.co.uk] (ISBN 0-00-637492-1), which tells the story of the women in a family starting with the grandmother down to the grand-daughter.
It begins in 1909 but from the descriptions, you would think it was the 1500s.
By the end of the book, China was a superpower (1978).
In less than 70 years they went from medieval to modern contemporary.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28611955</id>
	<title>Re:Down to 95\% of the world's arsenals!</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1246996080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We need a clear, unambiguous policy that nukes are absolutely forbidden for every state with no double standards.</p> </div><p>I know, I know! Let's just say that we're going to nuke anyone who has any nukes!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We need a clear , unambiguous policy that nukes are absolutely forbidden for every state with no double standards .
I know , I know !
Let 's just say that we 're going to nuke anyone who has any nukes !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need a clear, unambiguous policy that nukes are absolutely forbidden for every state with no double standards.
I know, I know!
Let's just say that we're going to nuke anyone who has any nukes!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28610867</id>
	<title>Re:Down to 95\% of the world's arsenals!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246992240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One madman with a nuke is worse than a peaceful leader with a thousand nukes.</p></div><p>What about one madman with a thousand nukes? When was the last time any of these countries had a "peaceful" leader?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One madman with a nuke is worse than a peaceful leader with a thousand nukes.What about one madman with a thousand nukes ?
When was the last time any of these countries had a " peaceful " leader ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One madman with a nuke is worse than a peaceful leader with a thousand nukes.What about one madman with a thousand nukes?
When was the last time any of these countries had a "peaceful" leader?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606827</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28613165</id>
	<title>Re:Robert Strange McNamara 1916 - 2009</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1246957920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>       I'm not certain that McNamara's views on the Vietnam war mean a thing. Underneath that war was one simple fact and that is that we absolutely guaranteed that France would not be allowed back into Vietnam following WWII. America lied and broke that promise. The entire flow of events rests upon that simple fact. Vietnam supported the US during WWII and that guarantee was the promised payment for the services that Vietnam provided.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Vietnam concluded that the US was not trustworthy and that treaties and agreements could not exist with the US due to our dishonesty. So that formed allegiances with the Soviet Union. That led to a nasty and pointless war.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not certain that McNamara 's views on the Vietnam war mean a thing .
Underneath that war was one simple fact and that is that we absolutely guaranteed that France would not be allowed back into Vietnam following WWII .
America lied and broke that promise .
The entire flow of events rests upon that simple fact .
Vietnam supported the US during WWII and that guarantee was the promised payment for the services that Vietnam provided .
            Vietnam concluded that the US was not trustworthy and that treaties and agreements could not exist with the US due to our dishonesty .
So that formed allegiances with the Soviet Union .
That led to a nasty and pointless war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>       I'm not certain that McNamara's views on the Vietnam war mean a thing.
Underneath that war was one simple fact and that is that we absolutely guaranteed that France would not be allowed back into Vietnam following WWII.
America lied and broke that promise.
The entire flow of events rests upon that simple fact.
Vietnam supported the US during WWII and that guarantee was the promised payment for the services that Vietnam provided.
            Vietnam concluded that the US was not trustworthy and that treaties and agreements could not exist with the US due to our dishonesty.
So that formed allegiances with the Soviet Union.
That led to a nasty and pointless war.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28615915</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone know</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246970880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Yes, he was doing something illegal. But so was Nixon, and I don't remember the army ousting him."</p><p>That's because he voluntarily resigned in anticipation of being charged with crimes and impeached.  In the event that he didn't, and would not comply with rulings from the judiciary or houses on the matter, I'm not sure what would have happened.  The Supreme Court and Speaker of the House show up and tell him to "get out" of the White House?  Or what?  I suppose once removed from office the authority would pass to the VP, at which point they could direct the military to physically remove the (former) President from the building.  But what if the military leaders refused to comply with that (ostensibly lawful) order?</p><p>The situation in Honduras is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honduran\_coup\_d'\%C3\%A9tat\_of\_2009" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">more complicated</a> [wikipedia.org], with the President ordering the military to distribute ballots for his (ruled illegal/unconstitutional) referendum, the head of the military refusing the (illegal) order, the President firing the head of the military, the judiciary restoring the head of the military and ordering the military to arrest the President.  The stupid mistake was not *charging* the guy with the unconstitutional actions and following through the legal process rather than deporting him (the latter was probably illegal).  "Detain" != "Deport".  The military almost certainly exceeded their authority, hence the label "coup d'etat" is probably appropriate, but half of what they were doing (removing the President from office and arresting him) was probably legal.</p><p>A coup isn't the solution either, but it is quite the constitutional mess any way that you look at it, and if you composed a similar situation in the U.S. or any other western democracy, I'm really not sure how it would turn out.  It would be messy for sure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Yes , he was doing something illegal .
But so was Nixon , and I do n't remember the army ousting him .
" That 's because he voluntarily resigned in anticipation of being charged with crimes and impeached .
In the event that he did n't , and would not comply with rulings from the judiciary or houses on the matter , I 'm not sure what would have happened .
The Supreme Court and Speaker of the House show up and tell him to " get out " of the White House ?
Or what ?
I suppose once removed from office the authority would pass to the VP , at which point they could direct the military to physically remove the ( former ) President from the building .
But what if the military leaders refused to comply with that ( ostensibly lawful ) order ? The situation in Honduras is more complicated [ wikipedia.org ] , with the President ordering the military to distribute ballots for his ( ruled illegal/unconstitutional ) referendum , the head of the military refusing the ( illegal ) order , the President firing the head of the military , the judiciary restoring the head of the military and ordering the military to arrest the President .
The stupid mistake was not * charging * the guy with the unconstitutional actions and following through the legal process rather than deporting him ( the latter was probably illegal ) .
" Detain " ! = " Deport " .
The military almost certainly exceeded their authority , hence the label " coup d'etat " is probably appropriate , but half of what they were doing ( removing the President from office and arresting him ) was probably legal.A coup is n't the solution either , but it is quite the constitutional mess any way that you look at it , and if you composed a similar situation in the U.S. or any other western democracy , I 'm really not sure how it would turn out .
It would be messy for sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Yes, he was doing something illegal.
But so was Nixon, and I don't remember the army ousting him.
"That's because he voluntarily resigned in anticipation of being charged with crimes and impeached.
In the event that he didn't, and would not comply with rulings from the judiciary or houses on the matter, I'm not sure what would have happened.
The Supreme Court and Speaker of the House show up and tell him to "get out" of the White House?
Or what?
I suppose once removed from office the authority would pass to the VP, at which point they could direct the military to physically remove the (former) President from the building.
But what if the military leaders refused to comply with that (ostensibly lawful) order?The situation in Honduras is more complicated [wikipedia.org], with the President ordering the military to distribute ballots for his (ruled illegal/unconstitutional) referendum, the head of the military refusing the (illegal) order, the President firing the head of the military, the judiciary restoring the head of the military and ordering the military to arrest the President.
The stupid mistake was not *charging* the guy with the unconstitutional actions and following through the legal process rather than deporting him (the latter was probably illegal).
"Detain" != "Deport".
The military almost certainly exceeded their authority, hence the label "coup d'etat" is probably appropriate, but half of what they were doing (removing the President from office and arresting him) was probably legal.A coup isn't the solution either, but it is quite the constitutional mess any way that you look at it, and if you composed a similar situation in the U.S. or any other western democracy, I'm really not sure how it would turn out.
It would be messy for sure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606975</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone know</title>
	<author>causality</author>
	<datestamp>1246977120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Exactly what the difference between 1500 and 2200 nukes is?</p></div></blockquote><p>
700 nukes.</p><blockquote><div><p>What has that really accomplished?</p></div></blockquote><p>
It distracted attention away from Honduras, the fact that what happened there was not a coup but actually the application of the rule of law (the removal by force of a wannabe dictator who illegally refused to leave office when his legal term limit had been reached), and the fact that the US president publically supported this wannabe dictator who tried, unsuccessfully and quite obviously, to illegally stay in power (that is, what he did was clearly against the laws/constitution of Honduras).  A US president speaking out against the rule of law.  Now you'd think that would really be newsworthy and certainly more interesting.  Instead we get endless coverage about Michael Jackson and this difference between 1500 and 2200 nukes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly what the difference between 1500 and 2200 nukes is ?
700 nukes.What has that really accomplished ?
It distracted attention away from Honduras , the fact that what happened there was not a coup but actually the application of the rule of law ( the removal by force of a wannabe dictator who illegally refused to leave office when his legal term limit had been reached ) , and the fact that the US president publically supported this wannabe dictator who tried , unsuccessfully and quite obviously , to illegally stay in power ( that is , what he did was clearly against the laws/constitution of Honduras ) .
A US president speaking out against the rule of law .
Now you 'd think that would really be newsworthy and certainly more interesting .
Instead we get endless coverage about Michael Jackson and this difference between 1500 and 2200 nukes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly what the difference between 1500 and 2200 nukes is?
700 nukes.What has that really accomplished?
It distracted attention away from Honduras, the fact that what happened there was not a coup but actually the application of the rule of law (the removal by force of a wannabe dictator who illegally refused to leave office when his legal term limit had been reached), and the fact that the US president publically supported this wannabe dictator who tried, unsuccessfully and quite obviously, to illegally stay in power (that is, what he did was clearly against the laws/constitution of Honduras).
A US president speaking out against the rule of law.
Now you'd think that would really be newsworthy and certainly more interesting.
Instead we get endless coverage about Michael Jackson and this difference between 1500 and 2200 nukes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606853</id>
	<title>Wrong thing for the right reasons?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246976340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not so sure this is a good thing in the <i>short</i> term - in the long term we're all better off with less nukes about the place.</p><p>My worry is that Russia will use the money, released from no longer having to maintain part of their arsenal, to have another foray into another ex-Soviet state. Their economy isn't looking too healthy, and what better way to detract the population from economic issues than an exciting little war? Putin's not exactly a tree-hugging, peace-loving type, and his puppet Medvedev was happy to go along with the incursion of Georgia.</p><p>Obama's good intentions may just end up haunting him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not so sure this is a good thing in the short term - in the long term we 're all better off with less nukes about the place.My worry is that Russia will use the money , released from no longer having to maintain part of their arsenal , to have another foray into another ex-Soviet state .
Their economy is n't looking too healthy , and what better way to detract the population from economic issues than an exciting little war ?
Putin 's not exactly a tree-hugging , peace-loving type , and his puppet Medvedev was happy to go along with the incursion of Georgia.Obama 's good intentions may just end up haunting him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not so sure this is a good thing in the short term - in the long term we're all better off with less nukes about the place.My worry is that Russia will use the money, released from no longer having to maintain part of their arsenal, to have another foray into another ex-Soviet state.
Their economy isn't looking too healthy, and what better way to detract the population from economic issues than an exciting little war?
Putin's not exactly a tree-hugging, peace-loving type, and his puppet Medvedev was happy to go along with the incursion of Georgia.Obama's good intentions may just end up haunting him.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28617317</id>
	<title>Re:Question!</title>
	<author>greyhueofdoubt</author>
	<datestamp>1246983540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The nukes aren't being dismantled, merely deactivated. Make no mistake, they will be kept in a convenient spot where they can be dusted off periodically.</p><p>-b</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The nukes are n't being dismantled , merely deactivated .
Make no mistake , they will be kept in a convenient spot where they can be dusted off periodically.-b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The nukes aren't being dismantled, merely deactivated.
Make no mistake, they will be kept in a convenient spot where they can be dusted off periodically.-b</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28610559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28617713</id>
	<title>Re:Keeping Count</title>
	<author>Deliveranc3</author>
	<datestamp>1246986720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually the "warhead" concept is a little funky, basically there are several (as many as 21+) nuclear explosives in each "warhead" which seperate above a target and hit individually over a range of 20+ kilometres each explosion is usually quite small (in the order of 5-10mt), but that's not the point. The point is one "warhead" can tear up a country fairly efficiently... nuclear subs typically carry about 20-30...<br> <br> I'm not some crazy war guy but I find this stuff interesting because it shows the mentality behind their creation and use, reading the themes behind the designs if you will.<br> <br> They basically read: Our civilians will get no warning, their civilians will get no warning, all the civilians should die.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually the " warhead " concept is a little funky , basically there are several ( as many as 21 + ) nuclear explosives in each " warhead " which seperate above a target and hit individually over a range of 20 + kilometres each explosion is usually quite small ( in the order of 5-10mt ) , but that 's not the point .
The point is one " warhead " can tear up a country fairly efficiently... nuclear subs typically carry about 20-30... I 'm not some crazy war guy but I find this stuff interesting because it shows the mentality behind their creation and use , reading the themes behind the designs if you will .
They basically read : Our civilians will get no warning , their civilians will get no warning , all the civilians should die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually the "warhead" concept is a little funky, basically there are several (as many as 21+) nuclear explosives in each "warhead" which seperate above a target and hit individually over a range of 20+ kilometres each explosion is usually quite small (in the order of 5-10mt), but that's not the point.
The point is one "warhead" can tear up a country fairly efficiently... nuclear subs typically carry about 20-30...  I'm not some crazy war guy but I find this stuff interesting because it shows the mentality behind their creation and use, reading the themes behind the designs if you will.
They basically read: Our civilians will get no warning, their civilians will get no warning, all the civilians should die.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28610199</id>
	<title>For more about NonProliferation</title>
	<author>twmcneil</author>
	<datestamp>1246989600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can recommend the book Epicenter of Peace by Nursultan Nazarbayev, President of Kazakhstan.  While Nazarbayev is not very well liked in certain circles for other reasons, the book is an interesting story of why he decided to lead Kazakhstan to denuclearization.<br> <br>One of the many things I learned from this book was the difference between nonproliferation and denuclearization.  Kazakhstan didn't simply agree to store away the warheads like the U.S. and Russia have agreed to do, they dismantled them and shipped them entirely out of the country (basically to Russia and the U.S.).  Then they dismantled the accompanying infrastructure, reseach facilities, education facilities, etc so that hopefully, nuclear arms would never again be deployed in Kazakhstan.<br> <br>It's an interesting story.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can recommend the book Epicenter of Peace by Nursultan Nazarbayev , President of Kazakhstan .
While Nazarbayev is not very well liked in certain circles for other reasons , the book is an interesting story of why he decided to lead Kazakhstan to denuclearization .
One of the many things I learned from this book was the difference between nonproliferation and denuclearization .
Kazakhstan did n't simply agree to store away the warheads like the U.S. and Russia have agreed to do , they dismantled them and shipped them entirely out of the country ( basically to Russia and the U.S. ) .
Then they dismantled the accompanying infrastructure , reseach facilities , education facilities , etc so that hopefully , nuclear arms would never again be deployed in Kazakhstan .
It 's an interesting story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can recommend the book Epicenter of Peace by Nursultan Nazarbayev, President of Kazakhstan.
While Nazarbayev is not very well liked in certain circles for other reasons, the book is an interesting story of why he decided to lead Kazakhstan to denuclearization.
One of the many things I learned from this book was the difference between nonproliferation and denuclearization.
Kazakhstan didn't simply agree to store away the warheads like the U.S. and Russia have agreed to do, they dismantled them and shipped them entirely out of the country (basically to Russia and the U.S.).
Then they dismantled the accompanying infrastructure, reseach facilities, education facilities, etc so that hopefully, nuclear arms would never again be deployed in Kazakhstan.
It's an interesting story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606989</id>
	<title>Big Stick</title>
	<author>dwieeb</author>
	<datestamp>1246977180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But America is supposed to have the Big Stick! Who will listen to us if our stick shrinks?</htmltext>
<tokenext>But America is supposed to have the Big Stick !
Who will listen to us if our stick shrinks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But America is supposed to have the Big Stick!
Who will listen to us if our stick shrinks?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606779</id>
	<title>Really?!?</title>
	<author>Comatose51</author>
	<datestamp>1246975860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><div><p>
<i>But John R. Bolton, who was ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, said Mr. Obama was going too far. "The number they are proposing for delivery vehicles is shockingly low," he said.</i></p>
</htmltext>
<tokenext>But John R. Bolton , who was ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush , said Mr. Obama was going too far .
" The number they are proposing for delivery vehicles is shockingly low , " he said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
But John R. Bolton, who was ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, said Mr. Obama was going too far.
"The number they are proposing for delivery vehicles is shockingly low," he said.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607175</id>
	<title>Re:Really?!?</title>
	<author>readin</author>
	<datestamp>1246977840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Really? They're aiming for 500 launch vehicles. Are there even that many targets to nuke or does Bolton just want us to do it a few times over for the refried beans effect? Also, this is 500 launch vehicles and 1,500 warheads so I assume there are some MIRVs in there. I was under the impression that the whole defense aspect of nukes was to make retaliation too expensive for the other side to shoot first. If that's the case, 500 launch vehicles and 1,500 warheads would be enough to make anyone regret it.</p></div></blockquote><p>

That may be true for most potential adversaries, but China has historically shown a shocking disregard for the lives of its people, especially during wartime.  Even in peacetime they don't seem to care. Mao's policies are believed to have resulted in the death of some 20 million Chinese (as many people as are in entire countries like Australia and Taiwan) during the Great Chinese Famine, yet Mao's portrait still hangs in an honored place at the entrance to the Forbidden City.

I'm not sure 1500 nukes landing in China would have the intended effect.  And that's assuming they haven't buddied up with Iran, NK, Russia and other states causing the US to have to divide the nuke strikes amoung several nations.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
They 're aiming for 500 launch vehicles .
Are there even that many targets to nuke or does Bolton just want us to do it a few times over for the refried beans effect ?
Also , this is 500 launch vehicles and 1,500 warheads so I assume there are some MIRVs in there .
I was under the impression that the whole defense aspect of nukes was to make retaliation too expensive for the other side to shoot first .
If that 's the case , 500 launch vehicles and 1,500 warheads would be enough to make anyone regret it .
That may be true for most potential adversaries , but China has historically shown a shocking disregard for the lives of its people , especially during wartime .
Even in peacetime they do n't seem to care .
Mao 's policies are believed to have resulted in the death of some 20 million Chinese ( as many people as are in entire countries like Australia and Taiwan ) during the Great Chinese Famine , yet Mao 's portrait still hangs in an honored place at the entrance to the Forbidden City .
I 'm not sure 1500 nukes landing in China would have the intended effect .
And that 's assuming they have n't buddied up with Iran , NK , Russia and other states causing the US to have to divide the nuke strikes amoung several nations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
They're aiming for 500 launch vehicles.
Are there even that many targets to nuke or does Bolton just want us to do it a few times over for the refried beans effect?
Also, this is 500 launch vehicles and 1,500 warheads so I assume there are some MIRVs in there.
I was under the impression that the whole defense aspect of nukes was to make retaliation too expensive for the other side to shoot first.
If that's the case, 500 launch vehicles and 1,500 warheads would be enough to make anyone regret it.
That may be true for most potential adversaries, but China has historically shown a shocking disregard for the lives of its people, especially during wartime.
Even in peacetime they don't seem to care.
Mao's policies are believed to have resulted in the death of some 20 million Chinese (as many people as are in entire countries like Australia and Taiwan) during the Great Chinese Famine, yet Mao's portrait still hangs in an honored place at the entrance to the Forbidden City.
I'm not sure 1500 nukes landing in China would have the intended effect.
And that's assuming they haven't buddied up with Iran, NK, Russia and other states causing the US to have to divide the nuke strikes amoung several nations.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608687</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome Back Carter...</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1246983540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's nice to see that the appeasement policies of President Carter's second term haven't skipped a beat since the end of his first (there's something to be said for consistency).</p></div><p>(I guess you're claiming that Obama is a clone of Carter.)</p><p>You do realize that the first incarnation of this particular nuclear arms control treaty was proposed and pushed through by Ronald Reagan in 1982, right? Controlling a nuclear Russia is one of the few areas where there was bipartisan agreement since it became an issue in 1949.</p><p>Plus this sort of treaty isn't appeasement (which would be giving stuff away in the hopes that somebody stops being aggressive): it's a tit-for-tat trading down of nukes on the theory that neither side actually wants to blow up the world and both sides have a significant interest in making sure that terrorists don't get their hands on either side's nukes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's nice to see that the appeasement policies of President Carter 's second term have n't skipped a beat since the end of his first ( there 's something to be said for consistency ) .
( I guess you 're claiming that Obama is a clone of Carter .
) You do realize that the first incarnation of this particular nuclear arms control treaty was proposed and pushed through by Ronald Reagan in 1982 , right ?
Controlling a nuclear Russia is one of the few areas where there was bipartisan agreement since it became an issue in 1949.Plus this sort of treaty is n't appeasement ( which would be giving stuff away in the hopes that somebody stops being aggressive ) : it 's a tit-for-tat trading down of nukes on the theory that neither side actually wants to blow up the world and both sides have a significant interest in making sure that terrorists do n't get their hands on either side 's nukes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's nice to see that the appeasement policies of President Carter's second term haven't skipped a beat since the end of his first (there's something to be said for consistency).
(I guess you're claiming that Obama is a clone of Carter.
)You do realize that the first incarnation of this particular nuclear arms control treaty was proposed and pushed through by Ronald Reagan in 1982, right?
Controlling a nuclear Russia is one of the few areas where there was bipartisan agreement since it became an issue in 1949.Plus this sort of treaty isn't appeasement (which would be giving stuff away in the hopes that somebody stops being aggressive): it's a tit-for-tat trading down of nukes on the theory that neither side actually wants to blow up the world and both sides have a significant interest in making sure that terrorists don't get their hands on either side's nukes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28620157</id>
	<title>Re:Getting rid of obsolete weapons</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1247060160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Both sides are developing SDI/anti-missile defenses. This makes many of these weapons obsolete</i> </p><p>I lol'd. You need a clue, anti-missile defences are anything but efficient, mainly when your launch vehicle throws a dozen warheads and a bunch of decoys around.

</p><p> <i>the new arms race is drones and micro-cruise missiles.</i> </p><p>No, it's not an arms race. We fight against barbarians (read terrorists/insurgents/guerillas) who drive trucks, not tanks or airplanes. They don't develop new weapons, they use old AK-47s and whatever equipement from a previous war they have left. We develop these new weapons to be more efficient in fighting them, but also because we fight a different type of war. We don't fight our equals like we did when we fought guys who flew cutting edge fighter planes, we fight people who travel on mules. That's why developing a cheap UAV is more important than developing an expensive air superiority fighter, but by no means is this a race, at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Both sides are developing SDI/anti-missile defenses .
This makes many of these weapons obsolete I lol 'd .
You need a clue , anti-missile defences are anything but efficient , mainly when your launch vehicle throws a dozen warheads and a bunch of decoys around .
the new arms race is drones and micro-cruise missiles .
No , it 's not an arms race .
We fight against barbarians ( read terrorists/insurgents/guerillas ) who drive trucks , not tanks or airplanes .
They do n't develop new weapons , they use old AK-47s and whatever equipement from a previous war they have left .
We develop these new weapons to be more efficient in fighting them , but also because we fight a different type of war .
We do n't fight our equals like we did when we fought guys who flew cutting edge fighter planes , we fight people who travel on mules .
That 's why developing a cheap UAV is more important than developing an expensive air superiority fighter , but by no means is this a race , at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Both sides are developing SDI/anti-missile defenses.
This makes many of these weapons obsolete I lol'd.
You need a clue, anti-missile defences are anything but efficient, mainly when your launch vehicle throws a dozen warheads and a bunch of decoys around.
the new arms race is drones and micro-cruise missiles.
No, it's not an arms race.
We fight against barbarians (read terrorists/insurgents/guerillas) who drive trucks, not tanks or airplanes.
They don't develop new weapons, they use old AK-47s and whatever equipement from a previous war they have left.
We develop these new weapons to be more efficient in fighting them, but also because we fight a different type of war.
We don't fight our equals like we did when we fought guys who flew cutting edge fighter planes, we fight people who travel on mules.
That's why developing a cheap UAV is more important than developing an expensive air superiority fighter, but by no means is this a race, at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28616091</id>
	<title>What about the yield</title>
	<author>Kiuas</author>
	<datestamp>1246972680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm always curious about whether or not these kind of treaties only restrict the number of warheads or the total yield of the arsenal. Of course, less nukes is always good, but if the agreement only says you must have less nukes, it doesn't stop you from making those nukes even more powerful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm always curious about whether or not these kind of treaties only restrict the number of warheads or the total yield of the arsenal .
Of course , less nukes is always good , but if the agreement only says you must have less nukes , it does n't stop you from making those nukes even more powerful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm always curious about whether or not these kind of treaties only restrict the number of warheads or the total yield of the arsenal.
Of course, less nukes is always good, but if the agreement only says you must have less nukes, it doesn't stop you from making those nukes even more powerful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607653</id>
	<title>Re:Really?!?</title>
	<author>chernevik</author>
	<datestamp>1246979640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fewer armaments don't necessarily mean more stability.  The outcome of a chess match where both sides have all their pieces is far less clear than one where one side has two pawns and the other one.  There are many scenarios in the latter case where one side can predict victory with 100\% -- which would certainly encourage them to play the game for high stakes.

I am more interested in the plausible nuclear endgame scenarios than I am in the number of cities we could level with the initial force.  That endgame analysis is the one that is going to deter people.  The likelihood of someone "going for it" diminishes as the likely endgame states become more clearly and more convincingly bad, and as the diversity of strategic viewpoints convinced of those states grows.  You don't have "enough" until the other guy knows damn well you'll have enough no matter what he does.

That endgame analysis is currently completely unacceptable to either side.  So why would we mess with that?  Because there isn't much strategic tension between the US and Russia \_today\_?  No one would have predicted such relations 25 years ago, and I doubt anyone can predict the situation 25 years from now.  Russian behavior in Georgia, Chechnya and Eastern Europe hardly suggests they're abandoned their ambitions.  I'm sure they have a similar opinion of our activity in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.  The US and the Soviets had constructed a reasonably stable strategic position by the 70s and 80s, which is something of a miracle given the frightfulness of these weapons.  I think we'd better be pretty careful before we completely dismantle that.  It isn't as if anyone will forget the construction of atom bombs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fewer armaments do n't necessarily mean more stability .
The outcome of a chess match where both sides have all their pieces is far less clear than one where one side has two pawns and the other one .
There are many scenarios in the latter case where one side can predict victory with 100 \ % -- which would certainly encourage them to play the game for high stakes .
I am more interested in the plausible nuclear endgame scenarios than I am in the number of cities we could level with the initial force .
That endgame analysis is the one that is going to deter people .
The likelihood of someone " going for it " diminishes as the likely endgame states become more clearly and more convincingly bad , and as the diversity of strategic viewpoints convinced of those states grows .
You do n't have " enough " until the other guy knows damn well you 'll have enough no matter what he does .
That endgame analysis is currently completely unacceptable to either side .
So why would we mess with that ?
Because there is n't much strategic tension between the US and Russia \ _today \ _ ?
No one would have predicted such relations 25 years ago , and I doubt anyone can predict the situation 25 years from now .
Russian behavior in Georgia , Chechnya and Eastern Europe hardly suggests they 're abandoned their ambitions .
I 'm sure they have a similar opinion of our activity in Iraq , Afghanistan and Pakistan .
The US and the Soviets had constructed a reasonably stable strategic position by the 70s and 80s , which is something of a miracle given the frightfulness of these weapons .
I think we 'd better be pretty careful before we completely dismantle that .
It is n't as if anyone will forget the construction of atom bombs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fewer armaments don't necessarily mean more stability.
The outcome of a chess match where both sides have all their pieces is far less clear than one where one side has two pawns and the other one.
There are many scenarios in the latter case where one side can predict victory with 100\% -- which would certainly encourage them to play the game for high stakes.
I am more interested in the plausible nuclear endgame scenarios than I am in the number of cities we could level with the initial force.
That endgame analysis is the one that is going to deter people.
The likelihood of someone "going for it" diminishes as the likely endgame states become more clearly and more convincingly bad, and as the diversity of strategic viewpoints convinced of those states grows.
You don't have "enough" until the other guy knows damn well you'll have enough no matter what he does.
That endgame analysis is currently completely unacceptable to either side.
So why would we mess with that?
Because there isn't much strategic tension between the US and Russia \_today\_?
No one would have predicted such relations 25 years ago, and I doubt anyone can predict the situation 25 years from now.
Russian behavior in Georgia, Chechnya and Eastern Europe hardly suggests they're abandoned their ambitions.
I'm sure they have a similar opinion of our activity in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The US and the Soviets had constructed a reasonably stable strategic position by the 70s and 80s, which is something of a miracle given the frightfulness of these weapons.
I think we'd better be pretty careful before we completely dismantle that.
It isn't as if anyone will forget the construction of atom bombs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28609071</id>
	<title>Re:Comes up a little short</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246985220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I would much rather see international collaboration to develop technology that mitigates the effectiveness and deadliness of nuclear weapons.</p></div><p>
So why is Obama entertaining the idea that the US may stop or delay missile defense systems?  Shouldn't we be investing more, not less into defensive solutions?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would much rather see international collaboration to develop technology that mitigates the effectiveness and deadliness of nuclear weapons .
So why is Obama entertaining the idea that the US may stop or delay missile defense systems ?
Should n't we be investing more , not less into defensive solutions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would much rather see international collaboration to develop technology that mitigates the effectiveness and deadliness of nuclear weapons.
So why is Obama entertaining the idea that the US may stop or delay missile defense systems?
Shouldn't we be investing more, not less into defensive solutions?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607667</id>
	<title>Re:Down to 95\% of the world's arsenals!</title>
	<author>davidtupper</author>
	<datestamp>1246979760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with this theory is that the genie is out of the bottle. The technology exists to create the weapons, therefore someone will build them. The only difficult part may be the fissionable material, but it is merely a matter of building the enrichment facility as the technology is out there (and readily available). It is the same with gun control, with a modest machine shop I can build fairly sophisticated firearms, the (not unsolvable) problem becomes the primer and powder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with this theory is that the genie is out of the bottle .
The technology exists to create the weapons , therefore someone will build them .
The only difficult part may be the fissionable material , but it is merely a matter of building the enrichment facility as the technology is out there ( and readily available ) .
It is the same with gun control , with a modest machine shop I can build fairly sophisticated firearms , the ( not unsolvable ) problem becomes the primer and powder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with this theory is that the genie is out of the bottle.
The technology exists to create the weapons, therefore someone will build them.
The only difficult part may be the fissionable material, but it is merely a matter of building the enrichment facility as the technology is out there (and readily available).
It is the same with gun control, with a modest machine shop I can build fairly sophisticated firearms, the (not unsolvable) problem becomes the primer and powder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28611267</id>
	<title>Re:Robert Strange McNamara 1916 - 2009</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246993680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Touch&#195;&#169;.  Couldn't have put it better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Touch     .
Could n't have put it better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TouchÃ©.
Couldn't have put it better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28613551</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone know</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246959420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If he violated an order from the supreme court, they might have tossed Nixon.  Anyway, carry on with your cheer leading.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If he violated an order from the supreme court , they might have tossed Nixon .
Anyway , carry on with your cheer leading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If he violated an order from the supreme court, they might have tossed Nixon.
Anyway, carry on with your cheer leading.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607235</id>
	<title>The inevitable tiring from the indefensible</title>
	<author>NZheretic</author>
	<datestamp>1246978080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We have been told that because others in the West - and their advocates are here tonight - carry the fearful burden of a defence which terrorises as much as the threat it counters, we too must carry that burden. We are actually told that New Zealanders cannot decide for themselves how to defend New Zealand, but are obliged to adopt the methods which others use to defend themselves.</p><p>Lord Carrington [the Secretary-General of NATO] made a case in Copenhagen recently against the creation of nuclear weapon free zones. He argued that if the people of the United States - as advocated by my friend over there - found themselves bearing the burden alone, they would tire of bearing it. Now that is exactly the point. Genuine agreement[s] about the control of nuclear weapons do not cede the advantage to one side or the other: they enhance security, they do not diminish it. And if such arrangements can be made, and such agreements reached, then those who remain outside those arrangements might well and truly tire of their insecurity. They will reject the logic of the weapon and they will assert their essential humanity. They will look for arms control agreements which are real and verifiable.</p></div> </blockquote><p> <a href="http://publicaddress.net/default,1578.sm" title="publicaddress.net">DAVID LANGE, Oxford Union debate, 1985</a> [publicaddress.net]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have been told that because others in the West - and their advocates are here tonight - carry the fearful burden of a defence which terrorises as much as the threat it counters , we too must carry that burden .
We are actually told that New Zealanders can not decide for themselves how to defend New Zealand , but are obliged to adopt the methods which others use to defend themselves.Lord Carrington [ the Secretary-General of NATO ] made a case in Copenhagen recently against the creation of nuclear weapon free zones .
He argued that if the people of the United States - as advocated by my friend over there - found themselves bearing the burden alone , they would tire of bearing it .
Now that is exactly the point .
Genuine agreement [ s ] about the control of nuclear weapons do not cede the advantage to one side or the other : they enhance security , they do not diminish it .
And if such arrangements can be made , and such agreements reached , then those who remain outside those arrangements might well and truly tire of their insecurity .
They will reject the logic of the weapon and they will assert their essential humanity .
They will look for arms control agreements which are real and verifiable .
DAVID LANGE , Oxford Union debate , 1985 [ publicaddress.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have been told that because others in the West - and their advocates are here tonight - carry the fearful burden of a defence which terrorises as much as the threat it counters, we too must carry that burden.
We are actually told that New Zealanders cannot decide for themselves how to defend New Zealand, but are obliged to adopt the methods which others use to defend themselves.Lord Carrington [the Secretary-General of NATO] made a case in Copenhagen recently against the creation of nuclear weapon free zones.
He argued that if the people of the United States - as advocated by my friend over there - found themselves bearing the burden alone, they would tire of bearing it.
Now that is exactly the point.
Genuine agreement[s] about the control of nuclear weapons do not cede the advantage to one side or the other: they enhance security, they do not diminish it.
And if such arrangements can be made, and such agreements reached, then those who remain outside those arrangements might well and truly tire of their insecurity.
They will reject the logic of the weapon and they will assert their essential humanity.
They will look for arms control agreements which are real and verifiable.
DAVID LANGE, Oxford Union debate, 1985 [publicaddress.net]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28619489</id>
	<title>Re:Robert Strange McNamara 1916 - 2009</title>
	<author>Ciaran Power</author>
	<datestamp>1247052720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>probable child molester</p></div><p>It's a bit much to call him a probable child molester when there's never been any evidence to support that. Not a massive Jackson fan but that's my understanding of things.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>probable child molesterIt 's a bit much to call him a probable child molester when there 's never been any evidence to support that .
Not a massive Jackson fan but that 's my understanding of things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>probable child molesterIt's a bit much to call him a probable child molester when there's never been any evidence to support that.
Not a massive Jackson fan but that's my understanding of things.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606563</id>
	<title>Oh please ..</title>
	<author>terbo</author>
	<datestamp>1246974720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just destroy your selves so we can go back to our huts and tipis, thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just destroy your selves so we can go back to our huts and tipis , thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just destroy your selves so we can go back to our huts and tipis, thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607211</id>
	<title>Getting rid of obsolete weapons</title>
	<author>hessian</author>
	<datestamp>1246978020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Both sides are developing SDI/anti-missile defenses. This makes many of these weapons obsolete, as they no longer have a guaranteed first-strike capability.</p><p>The old arms race was big missiles and bombers; the new arms race is drones and micro-cruise missiles.</p><p>But it was a nice press opportunity for both men to come out smelling like roses while they quietly plan each other's destruction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Both sides are developing SDI/anti-missile defenses .
This makes many of these weapons obsolete , as they no longer have a guaranteed first-strike capability.The old arms race was big missiles and bombers ; the new arms race is drones and micro-cruise missiles.But it was a nice press opportunity for both men to come out smelling like roses while they quietly plan each other 's destruction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both sides are developing SDI/anti-missile defenses.
This makes many of these weapons obsolete, as they no longer have a guaranteed first-strike capability.The old arms race was big missiles and bombers; the new arms race is drones and micro-cruise missiles.But it was a nice press opportunity for both men to come out smelling like roses while they quietly plan each other's destruction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607147</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong thing for the right reasons?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246977780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice to know that the mass media brainwashing machine is operational.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice to know that the mass media brainwashing machine is operational .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice to know that the mass media brainwashing machine is operational.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606965</id>
	<title>Re:Fallout</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246977000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't worry if they both keep cutting their arsenals like this they will just leave themselves at the mercy of China.  BTW this child saviour of yours does he have a talking dog?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry if they both keep cutting their arsenals like this they will just leave themselves at the mercy of China .
BTW this child saviour of yours does he have a talking dog ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry if they both keep cutting their arsenals like this they will just leave themselves at the mercy of China.
BTW this child saviour of yours does he have a talking dog?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607509</id>
	<title>Re:Robert Strange McNamara 1916 - 2009</title>
	<author>MozeeToby</author>
	<datestamp>1246979160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've really got to love our society.  A more than slightly crazy musician and probable child molester dies and it's all the news can talk about for three weeks as people cry in the streets and memorial concerts are held all over the country.  A man who was partially responsible for guiding the world through the cold war without destroying modern civilization dies and no one even knows who he is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've really got to love our society .
A more than slightly crazy musician and probable child molester dies and it 's all the news can talk about for three weeks as people cry in the streets and memorial concerts are held all over the country .
A man who was partially responsible for guiding the world through the cold war without destroying modern civilization dies and no one even knows who he is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've really got to love our society.
A more than slightly crazy musician and probable child molester dies and it's all the news can talk about for three weeks as people cry in the streets and memorial concerts are held all over the country.
A man who was partially responsible for guiding the world through the cold war without destroying modern civilization dies and no one even knows who he is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607755</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone know</title>
	<author>will\_die</author>
	<datestamp>1246980060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The actual number is less then that.  The 2200 is the max under the treaty of moscow and 1500 is the min number under this new treaty, if it is agreed to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The actual number is less then that .
The 2200 is the max under the treaty of moscow and 1500 is the min number under this new treaty , if it is agreed to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The actual number is less then that.
The 2200 is the max under the treaty of moscow and 1500 is the min number under this new treaty, if it is agreed to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28620007</id>
	<title>Re:Down to 95\% of the world's arsenals!</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1247059380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's bullshit, even if we had no nukes they'd still get nukes if they <b>could</b>. It's not because we'd give up our nukes that it would prevent us doing the stuff we like to do like invading sovereign nations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's bullshit , even if we had no nukes they 'd still get nukes if they could .
It 's not because we 'd give up our nukes that it would prevent us doing the stuff we like to do like invading sovereign nations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's bullshit, even if we had no nukes they'd still get nukes if they could.
It's not because we'd give up our nukes that it would prevent us doing the stuff we like to do like invading sovereign nations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28610927</id>
	<title>Re:This is good news for science...</title>
	<author>SEWilco</author>
	<datestamp>1246992420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have it backwards.  He wants to reduce nuclear weapons, not missiles.<br>
So put all your satellites in one pile, use an Orion drive to launch them, and the number of nuclear bombs will be reduced during a cheap launch. (Well, the per-satellite launch figure will be cheap...)</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have it backwards .
He wants to reduce nuclear weapons , not missiles .
So put all your satellites in one pile , use an Orion drive to launch them , and the number of nuclear bombs will be reduced during a cheap launch .
( Well , the per-satellite launch figure will be cheap... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have it backwards.
He wants to reduce nuclear weapons, not missiles.
So put all your satellites in one pile, use an Orion drive to launch them, and the number of nuclear bombs will be reduced during a cheap launch.
(Well, the per-satellite launch figure will be cheap...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606569</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607445</id>
	<title>Re:Down to 95\% of the world's arsenals!</title>
	<author>Skillet5151</author>
	<datestamp>1246978920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One madman with a nuke is worse than a peaceful leader with a thousand nukes.</p> </div><p>So in other words it's ok for your leaders to have as many as they want, just not anyone else?  I think that's what a lot of people in countries like Iran see in the US's strong opposition to any development of nukes: not a spirit of genuine concern against proliferation but a fear of any challenge to (Anglo-)American dominance.  Bitterness is understandable, especially in consideration of the fact that the US effectively allows Israel free rein with regards to its nuclear production.
<br> <br>
On a side note I find it embarrassing that the American media constantly implies Israel will be immediately obliterated if Iran is allowed to develop a primitive first nuke, while making no mention of the fact that Israel reportedly has hundreds of nukes with modern delivery vectors.  Sigh, what ever happened to logic or reason?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One madman with a nuke is worse than a peaceful leader with a thousand nukes .
So in other words it 's ok for your leaders to have as many as they want , just not anyone else ?
I think that 's what a lot of people in countries like Iran see in the US 's strong opposition to any development of nukes : not a spirit of genuine concern against proliferation but a fear of any challenge to ( Anglo- ) American dominance .
Bitterness is understandable , especially in consideration of the fact that the US effectively allows Israel free rein with regards to its nuclear production .
On a side note I find it embarrassing that the American media constantly implies Israel will be immediately obliterated if Iran is allowed to develop a primitive first nuke , while making no mention of the fact that Israel reportedly has hundreds of nukes with modern delivery vectors .
Sigh , what ever happened to logic or reason ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One madman with a nuke is worse than a peaceful leader with a thousand nukes.
So in other words it's ok for your leaders to have as many as they want, just not anyone else?
I think that's what a lot of people in countries like Iran see in the US's strong opposition to any development of nukes: not a spirit of genuine concern against proliferation but a fear of any challenge to (Anglo-)American dominance.
Bitterness is understandable, especially in consideration of the fact that the US effectively allows Israel free rein with regards to its nuclear production.
On a side note I find it embarrassing that the American media constantly implies Israel will be immediately obliterated if Iran is allowed to develop a primitive first nuke, while making no mention of the fact that Israel reportedly has hundreds of nukes with modern delivery vectors.
Sigh, what ever happened to logic or reason?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606827</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606909</id>
	<title>Re:Fallout</title>
	<author>Sporkinum</author>
	<datestamp>1246976640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't worry...there are still plenty of ways to create wastelands. The trinity of Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical is still around. You can add robot and grey goo to the mix in a few decades/centuries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry...there are still plenty of ways to create wastelands .
The trinity of Nuclear , Biological , and Chemical is still around .
You can add robot and grey goo to the mix in a few decades/centuries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry...there are still plenty of ways to create wastelands.
The trinity of Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical is still around.
You can add robot and grey goo to the mix in a few decades/centuries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607535</id>
	<title>Re:Down to 95\% of the world's arsenals!</title>
	<author>readin</author>
	<datestamp>1246979220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Madmen dictators are not 4-year-olds.  They don't decide whether to build nukes based on their dad setting a good example for them.  The calculate their self-interest and make their decision.  Or they calculate whatever mad purpose they have (genocide against Israel) and make their decision. They don't think about the need to defend against American nukes because they know that the US refrains from using nukes except when attacked by nukes.  Building nukes for themselves increases the risk of being a victim of a US nuke attack.  The only kind of attack the dictator's nukes deter are conventional attacks - and that has nothing to do with the US already having nukes.

The US abandoning nukes would make it even more attractive for smaller countries to build them.  Right now, NK's nukes merely deter a conventional American attack.  Remove American nukes and threats of nuclear retaliation, and suddenly NK's nukes give them the ability to extort anything they want from their defenseless neighbors.

Americans and western Europeans need to give up their patronizing attitudes toward other countries.  Those other countries aren't children who will imitate our adult ways like a child imitates his parents.  Those other countries are ruled by adults who calculate their self-interests the way an adult does.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Madmen dictators are not 4-year-olds .
They do n't decide whether to build nukes based on their dad setting a good example for them .
The calculate their self-interest and make their decision .
Or they calculate whatever mad purpose they have ( genocide against Israel ) and make their decision .
They do n't think about the need to defend against American nukes because they know that the US refrains from using nukes except when attacked by nukes .
Building nukes for themselves increases the risk of being a victim of a US nuke attack .
The only kind of attack the dictator 's nukes deter are conventional attacks - and that has nothing to do with the US already having nukes .
The US abandoning nukes would make it even more attractive for smaller countries to build them .
Right now , NK 's nukes merely deter a conventional American attack .
Remove American nukes and threats of nuclear retaliation , and suddenly NK 's nukes give them the ability to extort anything they want from their defenseless neighbors .
Americans and western Europeans need to give up their patronizing attitudes toward other countries .
Those other countries are n't children who will imitate our adult ways like a child imitates his parents .
Those other countries are ruled by adults who calculate their self-interests the way an adult does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Madmen dictators are not 4-year-olds.
They don't decide whether to build nukes based on their dad setting a good example for them.
The calculate their self-interest and make their decision.
Or they calculate whatever mad purpose they have (genocide against Israel) and make their decision.
They don't think about the need to defend against American nukes because they know that the US refrains from using nukes except when attacked by nukes.
Building nukes for themselves increases the risk of being a victim of a US nuke attack.
The only kind of attack the dictator's nukes deter are conventional attacks - and that has nothing to do with the US already having nukes.
The US abandoning nukes would make it even more attractive for smaller countries to build them.
Right now, NK's nukes merely deter a conventional American attack.
Remove American nukes and threats of nuclear retaliation, and suddenly NK's nukes give them the ability to extort anything they want from their defenseless neighbors.
Americans and western Europeans need to give up their patronizing attitudes toward other countries.
Those other countries aren't children who will imitate our adult ways like a child imitates his parents.
Those other countries are ruled by adults who calculate their self-interests the way an adult does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607895</id>
	<title>Re:Big Stick</title>
	<author>rumith</author>
	<datestamp>1246980480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't panic: usually guys with small sticks buy an iPhone or a Hummer to compensate for the size. Oh, wait a minute...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't panic : usually guys with small sticks buy an iPhone or a Hummer to compensate for the size .
Oh , wait a minute.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't panic: usually guys with small sticks buy an iPhone or a Hummer to compensate for the size.
Oh, wait a minute...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606989</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28617341</id>
	<title>Tell me when</title>
	<author>Deliveranc3</author>
	<datestamp>1246983780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>they figure out how to remove the nukes buried in each others cities.<br> <br> ICBM = $2,000,000,000.  Bribing a border guard = $50. <br> <br>Sigh... It's fine if there's only two countries with nukes, but when you New York just blows up and you don't know who did it... well, I'm not sure what you'd do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>they figure out how to remove the nukes buried in each others cities .
ICBM = $ 2,000,000,000 .
Bribing a border guard = $ 50 .
Sigh... It 's fine if there 's only two countries with nukes , but when you New York just blows up and you do n't know who did it... well , I 'm not sure what you 'd do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they figure out how to remove the nukes buried in each others cities.
ICBM = $2,000,000,000.
Bribing a border guard = $50.
Sigh... It's fine if there's only two countries with nukes, but when you New York just blows up and you don't know who did it... well, I'm not sure what you'd do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606559</id>
	<title>Mines bigger</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246974720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has come to my attention that the entire Linux community is a hotbed of so called 'alternative sexuality,' which includes anything from hedonistic orgies to homosexuality to pedophilia.</p><p>What better way of demonstrating this than by looking at the hidden messages contained within the names of some of Linux's most outspoken advocates:</p><ul><li> <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">Linus Torvalds</a> [microsoft.com] is an anagram of <b>slit anus or VD 'L,'</b> clearly referring to himself by the first initial.</li><li> <a href="http://www.geocities.com/stallmanus/" title="geocities.com" rel="nofollow">Richard M. Stallman</a> [geocities.com], spokespervert for the <b>G</b>aysex's <b>N</b>ot <b>U</b>nusual 'movement' is an anagram of <b>mans cram thrill ad.</b> </li><li> <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">Alan Cox</a> [microsoft.com] is <i>barely</i> an anagram of <b>anal cox</b> which is just so filthy and unchristian it unnerves me.</li></ul><p>I'm sure that Eric S. Raymond, composer of the satanic <a href="http://goatse.fr/" title="goatse.fr" rel="nofollow">homosexual</a> [goatse.fr] propaganda diatribe <i>The Cathedral and the Bizarre,</i> is probably an anagram of something queer, but we don't need to look that far as we know he's always shoving a gun up some poor little boy's rectum. <i>Update:</i> Eric S. Raymond is actually an anagram for <b>secondary rim</b> and <b>cord in my arse.</b> It just goes to show you that he is indeed queer.</p><p> <i>Update the Second:</i> It is also documented that Evil Sicko Gaymond is responsible for a nauseating piece of code called <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">Fetchmail</a> [microsoft.com], which is obviously sinister sodomite slang for 'Felch Male' -- a disgusting practise. For those not in the know, 'felching' is the act performed by two perverts wherein one sucks their own post-coital ejaculate out of the other's rectum. In fact, it appears that the dirty Linux faggots set out to undermine the good Republican institution of e-mail, turning it into 'e-male.'</p><p>As far as Richard 'Master' Stallman goes, that filthy fudge-packer was <a href="http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/05/26/free\_love/index.html" title="salon.com" rel="nofollow">actually quoted</a> [salon.com] on leftist commie propaganda site Salon.com as saying the following: 'I've been resistant to the pressure to conform in any circumstance,' he says. 'It's about being able to question conventional wisdom,' he asserts. 'I believe in love, but not monogamy,' he says plainly.</p><p>And this isn't a made up troll bullshit either! He actually stated this tripe, which makes it obvious that he is trying to politely say that he's a flaming <a href="http://www.comp-u-geek.net/" title="comp-u-geek.net" rel="nofollow">homo</a> [comp-u-geek.net] <a href="http://vagina.rotten.com/fecaljapan/" title="rotten.com" rel="nofollow">slut</a> [rotten.com]!</p><p>Speaking about 'flaming,' who better to point out as a filthy chutney ferret than Slashdot's very own self-confessed pederast Jon Katz. Although an obvious deviant anagram cannot be found from his name, he has already confessed, nay boasted of the <a href="http://goatse.fr/" title="goatse.fr" rel="nofollow">homosexual</a> [goatse.fr] perversion of <a href="http://slashdot.org/features/99/07/22/173256.shtml" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">corrupting the innocence of young children</a> [slashdot.org]. To quote from the article linked:</p><p>'I've got a rare kidney disease,' I told her. 'I have to go to the bathroom a lot. You can come with me if you want, but it takes a while. Is that okay with you? Do you want a note from my doctor?'</p><p>Is this why you were touching your <a href="http://smoke.rotten.com/bird/" title="rotten.com" rel="nofollow">penis</a> [rotten.com] in the cinema, Jon? And letting the other boys touch it too?</p><p>We should also point out that Jon Katz refers to himself as 'Slashdot's resident Gasbag.' <i>Is there any more doubt?</i> For those fortunate few who aren't aware of the list of <a href="http://goatse.fr/" title="goatse.fr" rel="nofollow">homosexual</a> [goatse.fr] terminology found inside the Linux 'Sauce Code,' a 'Gasbag' is a pervert who gains sexual gratification from having a thin straw inserted into his urethra (or to use the common parlance, 'piss-pipe'), then his <a href="http://goatse.fr/" title="goatse.fr" rel="nofollow">homosexual</a> [goatse.fr] lover blows firmly down the straw to inflate his scrotum. This is, of course, when he's not busy violating the dignity and copyright of posters to Slashdot by gathering together their postings and publishing them en masse to further his twisted and manipulative journalistic agenda.</p><p>Sick, disgusting antichristian perverts, the lot of them.</p><p>In addition, many of the Linux distributions (a 'distribution' is the most common way to spread the faggots' wares) are run by faggot groups. The <a href="http://www.redhat.com/" title="redhat.com" rel="nofollow">Slackware</a> [redhat.com] distro is named after the 'Slack-wear' fags wear to allow easy access to the anus for sexual purposes. Furthermore, Slackware is a close anagram of <b>claw arse</b>, a reference to the <a href="http://goatse.fr/" title="goatse.fr" rel="nofollow">homosexual</a> [goatse.fr] practise of anal fisting. The <a href="http://www.slackware.com/" title="slackware.com" rel="nofollow">Mandrake</a> [slackware.com] product is run by a group of French faggot satanists, and is named after the faggot nickname for the vibrator. It was also chosen because it is an anagram for <b>dark amen</b> and <b>ram naked,</b> which is what they do.</p><p>Another 'distro,' (abbrieviated as such because it sounds a bit like 'Disco,' which is where <a href="http://goatse.fr/" title="goatse.fr" rel="nofollow">homosexuals</a> [goatse.fr] preyed on young boys in the 1970s), is <a href="http://www.mandrake.com/" title="mandrake.com" rel="nofollow">Debian,</a> [mandrake.com] an anagram of <b>in a bed,</b> which could be considered innocent enough (after all, a bed is both where we sleep and pray), until we realise what other names Debian uses to describe their foul wares. 'Woody' is obvious enough, being a term for the erect male <a href="http://smoke.rotten.com/bird/" title="rotten.com" rel="nofollow">penis</a> [rotten.com], glistening with pre-cum. But far sicker is the phrase 'Frozen Potato' that they use. This filthy term, again found in the secret <a href="http://goatse.fr/" title="goatse.fr" rel="nofollow">homosexual</a> [goatse.fr] 'Sauce Code,' refers to the solo <a href="http://goatse.fr/" title="goatse.fr" rel="nofollow">homosexual</a> [goatse.fr] practice of defecating into a clear polythene bag, shaping the turd into a crude approximation of the male phallus, then leaving it in the freezer overnight until it becomes solid. The practitioner then proceeds to push the frozen 'potato' up his own rectum, squeezing it in and out until his tight young balls erupt in a screaming orgasm.</p><p>And <a href="http://www.debian.org/" title="debian.org" rel="nofollow">Red Hat</a> [debian.org] is secret <a href="http://www.comp-u-geek.net/" title="comp-u-geek.net" rel="nofollow">homo</a> [comp-u-geek.net] slang for the tip of a <a href="http://smoke.rotten.com/bird/" title="rotten.com" rel="nofollow">penis</a> [rotten.com] that is soaked in blood from a freshly violated underage ringpiece.</p><p>The fags have even invented special tools to aid their faggotry! For example, the 'supermount' tool was devised to allow deeper penetration, which is good for fags because it gives more pressure on the prostate gland. 'Automount' is used, on the other hand, because Linux users are all fat and gay, and need to <a href="http://www.comp-u-geek.net/" title="comp-u-geek.net" rel="nofollow">mount each other</a> [comp-u-geek.net] automatically.</p><p>The depths of their depravity can be seen in their use of 'mount points.' These are, plainly speaking, the different points of penetration. The main one is obviously<tt>/anus</tt>, but there are others. Militant fags even say 'there is no<tt>/opt</tt> mount point' because for these dirty perverts faggotry is not optional but a way of life.</p><p>More evidence is in the fact that Linux users say how much they love <tt>`man`</tt>, even going so far as to say that all new Linux users (who are in fact just innocent heterosexuals indoctrinated by the gay propaganda) should try out <tt>`man`</tt>. In no other system do users boast of their frequent recourse to a man.</p><p>Other areas of the system also show Linux's inherit <i>gayness.</i> For example, people are often told of the 'FAQ,' but how many innocent heterosexual <a href="http://www.amiga.com/" title="amiga.com" rel="nofollow">Windows</a> [amiga.com] users know what this actually means. The answer is shocking: <i>Faggot Anal Quest:</i> the voyage of discovery for newly converted fags!</p><p>Even the title '<a href="http://www.geekizoid.com/" title="geekizoid.com" rel="nofollow">Slashdot</a> [geekizoid.com]' originally referred to a <a href="http://goatse.fr/" title="goatse.fr" rel="nofollow">homosexual</a> [goatse.fr] practice. <a href="http://www.kuro5hin.org/" title="kuro5hin.org" rel="nofollow">Slashdot</a> [kuro5hin.org] of course refers to the popular gay practice of blood-letting. The Slashbots, of course are those super-zealous <a href="http://goatse.fr/" title="goatse.fr" rel="nofollow">homosexuals</a> [goatse.fr] who take this perversion to its extreme by ripping open their anuses, as seen on the site most popular with Slashdot users, the depraved work of Satan, <a href="http://www.eff.org/" title="eff.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.eff.org/</a> [eff.org].</p><p>The editors of <a href="http://www.slashduh.org/" title="slashduh.org" rel="nofollow">Slashdot</a> [slashduh.org] also have <a href="http://goatse.fr/" title="goatse.fr" rel="nofollow">homosexual</a> [goatse.fr] names: 'Hemos' is obvious in itself, being one vowel away from 'Homos.' But even more sickening is 'Commander Taco' which sounds a bit like 'Commode in Taco,' filthy gay slang for a pair of spreadeagled buttocks that are caked with <a href="http://pboy.com/shteatrfrk/images01/" title="pboy.com" rel="nofollow">excrement</a> [pboy.com]. (The best form of lubrication, they insist.) Sometimes, these 'Taco Commodes' have special 'Salsa Sauce' (blood from a ruptured rectum) and 'Cheese' (rancid flakes of <a href="http://smoke.rotten.com/bird/" title="rotten.com" rel="nofollow">penis</a> [rotten.com] discharge) toppings. And to make it even worse, <a href="http://notslashdot.org/" title="notslashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Slashdot</a> [notslashdot.org] runs on <i>Apache!</i> </p><p>The <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/iis/" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">Apache</a> [microsoft.com] server, whose use among fags is as prevalent as AIDS, is named after <a href="http://goatse.fr/" title="goatse.fr" rel="nofollow">homosexual</a> [goatse.fr] activity -- as everyone knows, popular faggot band, the Village People, featured an Apache Indian, and it is for him that this gay program is named.</p><p>And that's not forgetting the use of patches in the Linux fag world -- patches are used to make the anus accessible for repeated anal sex even after its rupture by a session of fisting.</p><p>To summarise: Linux is gay. 'Slash -- Dot' is the graphical description of the space between a young boy's scrotum and anus. And <a href="http://www.apple.com/macosx/" title="apple.com" rel="nofollow">BeOS</a> [apple.com] is for hermaphrodites and disabled 'stumpers.'</p><p> <b>FEEDBACK</b> </p><blockquote><div><p> <i>What worries me is how much you know about what gay people do. I'm scared I actually read this whole thing. I think this post is a good example of the negative effects of Internet usage on people. This person obviously has no social life anymore and had to result to writing something as stupid as this. And actually take the time to do it too. Although... I think it was satire.. blah.. it's early.</i> -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, the only reason I know all about this is because I had the misfortune to read the Linux 'Sauce code' once. Although publicised as the computer code needed to get Linux up and running on a computer (and haven't you always been worried about the phrase 'Monolithic Kernel'?), this foul document is actually a detailed and graphic description of every conceivable degrading perversion known to the human race, as well as a few of the major animal species. It has shocked and disturbed me, to the point of needing to shock and disturb the common man to <i>warn</i> them of the impending <a href="http://www.comp-u-geek.net/" title="comp-u-geek.net" rel="nofollow">homo</a> [comp-u-geek.net]-calypse which threatens to engulf our planet.</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>You must work for the government. Trying to post the most obscene stuff in hopes that slashdot won't be able to continue or something, due to legal woes. If i ever see your ugly face, i'm going to stick my fireplace poker up your ass, after it's nice and hot, to weld shut that nasty gaping hole of yours.</i> -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot</p></div></blockquote><p>Doesn't it give you a hard-on to imagine your thick strong poker ramming it's way up my most sacred of sphincters? You're beyond help, my friend, as the only thing you can imagine is the foul penetrative violation of another man. Are you sure you're not Eric Raymond? The government, being populated by limp-wristed liberals, could never stem the sickening tide of <a href="http://goatse.fr/" title="goatse.fr" rel="nofollow">homosexual</a> [goatse.fr] child molesting Linux advocacy. Hell, they've given NAMBLA free reign for years!</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>you really should post this logged in. i wish i could remember jebus's password, cuz i'd give it to you.</i> -- <a href="http://slashdot.org/users.pl?nick=mighty\%20jebus" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">mighty jebus</a> [slashdot.org], Slashdot</p></div></blockquote><p>Thank you for your kind words of support. However, this document shall only ever be posted anonymously. This is because the 'Open Sauce' movement is a sham, proposing homoerotic cults of hero worshipping in the name of freedom. I speak for the common man. For any man who prefers the warm, enveloping velvet folds of a woman's <a href="http://www.happy.bodysnatchers.co.uk/deadcunt/" title="bodysnatchers.co.uk" rel="nofollow">vagina</a> [bodysnatchers.co.uk] to the tight puckered ringpiece of a child. These men, being common, decent folk, don't have a say in the political hypocrisy that is Slashdot culture. I am the <a href="http://www.hitler.org/" title="hitler.org" rel="nofollow">unknown liberator</a> [hitler.org].</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>ROLF LAMO i hate linux FAGGOTS</i> -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot</p></div></blockquote><p>We shouldn't hate them, we should pity them for the misguided fools they are... Fanatical Linux zeal-outs need to be herded into camps for re-education and subsequent rehabilitation into normal heterosexual society. This re-education shall be achieved by forcing them to watch repeats of <i>Baywatch</i> until the very mention of <a href="http://fotm.rotten.com/fotm/vertical.html" title="rotten.com" rel="nofollow">Pamela Anderson</a> [rotten.com] causes them to fill their pants with healthy heterosexual <a href="http://www.zillabunny.com/express/" title="zillabunny.com" rel="nofollow">jism</a> [zillabunny.com].</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>Actually, that's not at all how scrotal inflation works. I understand it involves injecting sterile saline solution into the scrotum. I've never tried this, but you can read how to do it safely in case you're interested. (Before you moderate this down, ask yourself honestly -- who are the real crazies -- people who do scrotal inflation, or people who pay $1000+ for a game console?)</i> -- <a href="http://slashdot.org/users.pl?nick=double\_h" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">double\_h</a> [slashdot.org], Slashdot</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, it just goes to show that even the holy Linux 'sauce code' is riddled with bugs that need fixing. (The irony of Jon Katz not even being able to inflate his scrotum correctly has not been lost on me.) The Linux pervert elite already acknowledge this, with their queer slogan: 'Given enough arms, all rectums are shallow.' And anyway, the <a href="http://www.xbox.com/" title="xbox.com" rel="nofollow">PS2</a> [xbox.com] sucks major cock and isn't worth the money. Intellivision forever!</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>dude did u used to post on msnbc's nt bulletin board now that u are doing anti-gay posts u also need to start in with anti-black stuff too c u in church</i> -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot</p></div></blockquote><p>For one thing, whilst Linux is a cavalcade of queer propaganda masquerading as the future of computing, <a href="http://www.linux.com/" title="linux.com" rel="nofollow">NT</a> [linux.com] is used by people who think nothing better of encasing their genitals in quick setting plaster then going to see a really dirty porno film, enjoying the restriction enforced onto them. Remember, a wasted arousal is a <i>sin</i> in the eyes of the <a href="http://www.atheism.org/" title="atheism.org" rel="nofollow">Catholic church</a> [atheism.org]. Clearly, the only god-fearing Christian operating system in existence is CP/M -- The Christian Program Monitor. All computer users should immediately ask their local pastor to install this fine OS onto their systems. It is the only route to salvation.</p><p>Secondly, this message is for <i>every</i> man. Computers know no colour. Not only that, but one of the finest websites in the world is maintained by <i> <a href="http://www.stileproject.com/" title="stileproject.com" rel="nofollow">a Black Man</a> [stileproject.com] </i>. Now fuck off you racist donkey felcher.</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>And don't forget that slashdot was written in Perl, which is just too close to 'Pearl Necklace' for comfort.... oh wait; that's something all you heterosexuals do.... I can't help but wonder how much faster the trolls could do First-Posts on this site if it were redone in PHP... I could hand-type dynamic HTML pages faster than Perl can do them.</i> -- <a href="http://slashdot.org/users.pl?nick=phee" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">phee</a> [slashdot.org], Slashdot</p></div></blockquote><p>Although there is nothing unholy about the fine heterosexual act of ejaculating between a woman's breasts, squirting one's load up towards her neck and chin area, it should be noted that <a href="http://www.python.org/" title="python.org" rel="nofollow">Perl</a> [python.org] (standing for <b>P</b>ansies <b>E</b>ntering <b>R</b>ectums <b>L</b>ocally) is also close to 'Pearl Monocle,' 'Pearl Nosering,' and the ubiquitous 'Pearl Enema.'</p><p>One scary thing about <a href="http://java.sun.com/" title="sun.com" rel="nofollow">Perl</a> [sun.com] is that it contains hidden <a href="http://goatse.fr/" title="goatse.fr" rel="nofollow">homosexual</a> [goatse.fr] messages. Take the following code: <tt>LWP::Simple</tt> -- It looks innocuous enough, doesn't it? But look at the line closely: <i>There are two colons next to each other!</i> As Larry 'Balls to the' Wall would openly admit in the Perl Documentation, Perl was designed from the ground up to indoctrinate it's programmers into performing unnatural sexual acts -- having two colons so closely together is clearly a reference to the perverse sickening act of 'colon kissing,' whereby two <a href="http://goatse.fr/" title="goatse.fr" rel="nofollow">homosexual</a> [goatse.fr] queers spread their buttocks wide, pressing their filthy torn sphincters together. They then share small round objects like marbles or golfballs by passing them from one rectum to another using muscle contraction alone. This is also referred to in programming 'circles' as 'Parameter Passing.'</p><p>And <a href="http://www.perl.org/" title="perl.org" rel="nofollow">PHP</a> [perl.org] stands for <b>P</b>erverted <b>H</b>omosexual <b>P</b>enetration. Didn't you know?</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>Thank you for your valuable input on this. I am sure you will be never forgotten. BTW: Did I mention that this could be useful in terraforming Mars? Mars rulaa.</i> -- <a href="http://slashdot.org/users.pl?nick=Eimernase" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Eimernase</a> [slashdot.org], Slashdot</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, I don't know about terraforming Mars, but I <i>do</i> know that <a href="http://goatse.fr/" title="goatse.fr" rel="nofollow">homosexual</a> [goatse.fr] Linux Advocates have been probing Uranus for years.</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>That's inspiring. Keep up the good work, AC. May God in his wisdom grant you the strength to bring the plain honest truth to this community, and make it pure again. Yours, Cerberus.</i> -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot</p></div></blockquote><p> <i>*sniff*</i> That brings a tear to my eye. Thank you once more for your kind support. I have taken faith in the knowledge that I am doing the <a href="http://www.atheism.org/" title="atheism.org" rel="nofollow">Good Lord</a> [atheism.org]'s work, but it is encouraging to know that I am helping out the common man here.</p><p>However, I should be cautious about revealing your name 'Cerberus' on such a filthy den of depravity as Slashdot. It is a well known fact that the 'Kerberos' documentation from Microsoft is a detailed manual describing, in intimate, exacting detail, how to sexually penetrate a variety of unwilling canine animals; be they domesticated, wild, or mythical. Slashdot posters have taken great pleasure in illegally spreading this documentation far and wide, treating it as an 'extension' to the Linux 'Sauce Code,' for the sake of 'interoperability.' (The slang term they use for nonconsensual intercourse -- their favourite kind.)</p><p>In fact, sick twisted Linux deviants are known to have LAN parties, (<b>L</b>ove of <b>A</b>nal <b>N</b>aughtiness, needless to say.), wherein they entice a stray dog, known as the 'Samba Mount,' into their homes. Up to four of these filth-sodden blasphemers against nature take turns to plunge their erect, throbbing, uncircumcised members, conkers-deep, into the rectum, mouth, and other fleshy orifices of the poor animal. Eventually, the 'Samba Mount' collapses due to 'overload,' and needs to be 'rebooted.' (<i>i.e.,</i> kicked out into the street, and left to fend for itself.) Many Linux users boast about their 'uptime' in such situations.</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>Inspiring stuff! If only all trolls were this quality!</i> -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot</p></div></blockquote><p>If only indeed. You can help our brave cause by moderating this message up as often as possible. I recommend '+1, Underrated,' as that will protect your precious Karma in <a href="http://slashdot.org/metamod.pl" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Metamoderation</a> [slashdot.org]. Only then can we break through the glass ceiling of Homosexual Slashdot Culture. Is it any wonder that the new version of Slashcode has been christened 'Bender'???</p><p>If we can get just one of these postings up to at least '+1,' then it will be archived <i>forever!</i> Others will learn of our struggle, and join with us in our battle for freedom!</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>It's pathetic you've spent so much time writing this.</i> -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot</p></div></blockquote><p>I am compelled to document the foulness and <a href="http://www.catholic.net/" title="catholic.net" rel="nofollow">carnal depravity</a> [catholic.net] that is Linux, in order that we may prepare ourselves for the great holy war that is to follow. It is my solemn duty to peel back the foreskin of ignorance and apply the wire brush of enlightenment.</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>As with any great open-source project, you need someone asking this question, so I'll do it. When the hell is version 2.0 going to be ready?!?!</i> -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot</p></div></blockquote><p>I could make an arrogant, childish comment along the lines of 'Every time someone asks for 2.0, I won't release it for another 24 hours,' but the truth of the matter is that I'm quite nervous of releasing a 'number two,' as I can guarantee some filthy shit-slurping Linux pervert would want to suck it straight out of my anus before I've even had chance to wipe.</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>I desperately want to suck your monolithic kernel, you sexy hunk, you.</i> -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot</p></div></blockquote><p>I sincerely hope you're <a href="http://www.geocities.com/signal\_sig/petri.html" title="geocities.com" rel="nofollow">Natalie Portman</a> [geocities.com].</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>Dude, nothing on slashdot larger than 3 paragraphs is worth reading. Try to distill the message, whatever it was, and maybe I'll read it. As it is, I have to much open source software to write to waste even 10 seconds of precious time. 10 seconds is all its gonna take M$ to whoop Linux's ass. Vigilence is the price of Free (as in libre -- from the fine, frou frou French language) Software. Hack on fellow geeks, and remember: Friday is Bouillabaisse day except for heathens who do not believe that Jesus died for their sins. Those godless, oil drench, bearded sexist clowns can pull grits from their pantaloons (another fine, fine French word) and eat that. Anyway, try to keep your message focused and concise. For concision is the soul of derision. Way.</i> -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot</p></div></blockquote><p>What the <i>fuck?</i> </p><blockquote><div><p> <i>I've read your gay conspiracy post version 1.3.0 and I must say I'm impressed. In particular, I appreciate how you have managed to squeeze in a healthy dose of the latent homosexuality you gay-bashing <a href="http://www.comp-u-geek.net/" title="comp-u-geek.net" rel="nofollow">homos</a> [comp-u-geek.net] tend to be full of. Thank you again.</i> -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot</p></div></blockquote><p>Well bugger me!</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>ooooh honey. how insecure are you!!! wann a little massage from deare bruci. love you</i> -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot</p></div></blockquote><p>Fuck <i>right</i> off!</p><p>IMPORTANT: This message needs to be heard (Not <a href="http://www.linux.org/" title="linux.org" rel="nofollow">HURD</a> [linux.org], which is an acronym for '<b>H</b>uge <b>U</b>nclean <b>R</b>ectal <b>D</b>ilator') across the whole community, so it has been released into the <a href="http://www.icopyright.com/" title="icopyright.com" rel="nofollow">Public Domain</a> [icopyright.com]. You know, that licence that we all had before those homoerotic crypto-fascists came out with the <a href="http://www.publicsource.apple.com/apsl/" title="apple.com" rel="nofollow">GPL</a> [apple.com] (<b>G</b>ay <b>P</b>enetration <b>L</b>icense) that is no more than an excuse to see who's got the biggest <a href="http://vagina.rotten.com/fecaljapan/" title="rotten.com" rel="nofollow">feces-encrusted</a> [rotten.com] cock. I would have put this up on <a href="http://www.adultmember.com/freshmeat/" title="adultmember.com" rel="nofollow">Freshmeat</a> [adultmember.com], but that name is <i>known</i> to be a euphemism for the tight rump of a young boy.</p><p>Come to think of it, the whole concept of 'Source Control' unnerves me, because it sounds a bit like 'Sauce Control,' which is a description of the <a href="http://goatse.fr/" title="goatse.fr" rel="nofollow">homosexual</a> [goatse.fr] practice of holding the base of the cock shaft tightly upon the point of ejaculation, thus causing a build up of semenal fluid that is only released upon entry into an incision made into the base of the receiver's scrotum. And 'Open Sauce' is the act of ejaculating into another mans face or perhaps a biscuit to be shared later. Obviously, 'Closed Sauce' is the only Christian thing to do, as evidenced by the fact that it is what Cathedrals are all about.</p><p> <b>Contributors:</b> (although not to the eternal game of 'soggy biscuit' that open 'sauce' development has become) Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, phee, Anonymous Coward, mighty jebus, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, double\_h, Anonymous Coward, Eimernase, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward. Further contributions are welcome.</p><p> <b>Current changes:</b> This version sent to <a href="http://slashdot.org/~Free\%20WIPO/" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow"> <em>FreeWIPO</em> </a> [slashdot.org] by 'Bring BackATV' as plain text. Reformatted everything, added all links back in (that we could match from the previous version), many new ones (Slashbot bait links). Even more spelling fixed. Who wrote this thing, CmdrTaco himself?</p><p> <b>Previous changes:</b> Yet more changes added. Spelling fixed. Feedback added. Explanation of 'distro' system. 'Mount Point' syntax described. More filth regarding <tt>`man`</tt> and Slashdot. Yet more fucking spelling fixed. 'Fetchmail' uncovered further. More Slashbot baiting. Apache exposed. Distribution licence at foot of document.</p><p> <b>ANUX -- A full Linux distribution... <i>Up your ass!</i> </b> </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It has come to my attention that the entire Linux community is a hotbed of so called 'alternative sexuality, ' which includes anything from hedonistic orgies to homosexuality to pedophilia.What better way of demonstrating this than by looking at the hidden messages contained within the names of some of Linux 's most outspoken advocates : Linus Torvalds [ microsoft.com ] is an anagram of slit anus or VD 'L, ' clearly referring to himself by the first initial .
Richard M. Stallman [ geocities.com ] , spokespervert for the Gaysex 's Not Unusual 'movement ' is an anagram of mans cram thrill ad .
Alan Cox [ microsoft.com ] is barely an anagram of anal cox which is just so filthy and unchristian it unnerves me.I 'm sure that Eric S. Raymond , composer of the satanic homosexual [ goatse.fr ] propaganda diatribe The Cathedral and the Bizarre , is probably an anagram of something queer , but we do n't need to look that far as we know he 's always shoving a gun up some poor little boy 's rectum .
Update : Eric S. Raymond is actually an anagram for secondary rim and cord in my arse .
It just goes to show you that he is indeed queer .
Update the Second : It is also documented that Evil Sicko Gaymond is responsible for a nauseating piece of code called Fetchmail [ microsoft.com ] , which is obviously sinister sodomite slang for 'Felch Male ' -- a disgusting practise .
For those not in the know , 'felching ' is the act performed by two perverts wherein one sucks their own post-coital ejaculate out of the other 's rectum .
In fact , it appears that the dirty Linux faggots set out to undermine the good Republican institution of e-mail , turning it into 'e-male .
'As far as Richard 'Master ' Stallman goes , that filthy fudge-packer was actually quoted [ salon.com ] on leftist commie propaganda site Salon.com as saying the following : 'I 've been resistant to the pressure to conform in any circumstance, ' he says .
'It 's about being able to question conventional wisdom, ' he asserts .
'I believe in love , but not monogamy, ' he says plainly.And this is n't a made up troll bullshit either !
He actually stated this tripe , which makes it obvious that he is trying to politely say that he 's a flaming homo [ comp-u-geek.net ] slut [ rotten.com ] ! Speaking about 'flaming, ' who better to point out as a filthy chutney ferret than Slashdot 's very own self-confessed pederast Jon Katz .
Although an obvious deviant anagram can not be found from his name , he has already confessed , nay boasted of the homosexual [ goatse.fr ] perversion of corrupting the innocence of young children [ slashdot.org ] .
To quote from the article linked : 'I 've got a rare kidney disease, ' I told her .
'I have to go to the bathroom a lot .
You can come with me if you want , but it takes a while .
Is that okay with you ?
Do you want a note from my doctor ?
'Is this why you were touching your penis [ rotten.com ] in the cinema , Jon ?
And letting the other boys touch it too ? We should also point out that Jon Katz refers to himself as 'Slashdot 's resident Gasbag .
' Is there any more doubt ?
For those fortunate few who are n't aware of the list of homosexual [ goatse.fr ] terminology found inside the Linux 'Sauce Code, ' a 'Gasbag ' is a pervert who gains sexual gratification from having a thin straw inserted into his urethra ( or to use the common parlance , 'piss-pipe ' ) , then his homosexual [ goatse.fr ] lover blows firmly down the straw to inflate his scrotum .
This is , of course , when he 's not busy violating the dignity and copyright of posters to Slashdot by gathering together their postings and publishing them en masse to further his twisted and manipulative journalistic agenda.Sick , disgusting antichristian perverts , the lot of them.In addition , many of the Linux distributions ( a 'distribution ' is the most common way to spread the faggots ' wares ) are run by faggot groups .
The Slackware [ redhat.com ] distro is named after the 'Slack-wear ' fags wear to allow easy access to the anus for sexual purposes .
Furthermore , Slackware is a close anagram of claw arse , a reference to the homosexual [ goatse.fr ] practise of anal fisting .
The Mandrake [ slackware.com ] product is run by a group of French faggot satanists , and is named after the faggot nickname for the vibrator .
It was also chosen because it is an anagram for dark amen and ram naked , which is what they do.Another 'distro, ' ( abbrieviated as such because it sounds a bit like 'Disco, ' which is where homosexuals [ goatse.fr ] preyed on young boys in the 1970s ) , is Debian , [ mandrake.com ] an anagram of in a bed , which could be considered innocent enough ( after all , a bed is both where we sleep and pray ) , until we realise what other names Debian uses to describe their foul wares .
'Woody ' is obvious enough , being a term for the erect male penis [ rotten.com ] , glistening with pre-cum .
But far sicker is the phrase 'Frozen Potato ' that they use .
This filthy term , again found in the secret homosexual [ goatse.fr ] 'Sauce Code, ' refers to the solo homosexual [ goatse.fr ] practice of defecating into a clear polythene bag , shaping the turd into a crude approximation of the male phallus , then leaving it in the freezer overnight until it becomes solid .
The practitioner then proceeds to push the frozen 'potato ' up his own rectum , squeezing it in and out until his tight young balls erupt in a screaming orgasm.And Red Hat [ debian.org ] is secret homo [ comp-u-geek.net ] slang for the tip of a penis [ rotten.com ] that is soaked in blood from a freshly violated underage ringpiece.The fags have even invented special tools to aid their faggotry !
For example , the 'supermount ' tool was devised to allow deeper penetration , which is good for fags because it gives more pressure on the prostate gland .
'Automount ' is used , on the other hand , because Linux users are all fat and gay , and need to mount each other [ comp-u-geek.net ] automatically.The depths of their depravity can be seen in their use of 'mount points .
' These are , plainly speaking , the different points of penetration .
The main one is obviously/anus , but there are others .
Militant fags even say 'there is no/opt mount point ' because for these dirty perverts faggotry is not optional but a way of life.More evidence is in the fact that Linux users say how much they love ` man ` , even going so far as to say that all new Linux users ( who are in fact just innocent heterosexuals indoctrinated by the gay propaganda ) should try out ` man ` .
In no other system do users boast of their frequent recourse to a man.Other areas of the system also show Linux 's inherit gayness .
For example , people are often told of the 'FAQ, ' but how many innocent heterosexual Windows [ amiga.com ] users know what this actually means .
The answer is shocking : Faggot Anal Quest : the voyage of discovery for newly converted fags ! Even the title 'Slashdot [ geekizoid.com ] ' originally referred to a homosexual [ goatse.fr ] practice .
Slashdot [ kuro5hin.org ] of course refers to the popular gay practice of blood-letting .
The Slashbots , of course are those super-zealous homosexuals [ goatse.fr ] who take this perversion to its extreme by ripping open their anuses , as seen on the site most popular with Slashdot users , the depraved work of Satan , http : //www.eff.org/ [ eff.org ] .The editors of Slashdot [ slashduh.org ] also have homosexual [ goatse.fr ] names : 'Hemos ' is obvious in itself , being one vowel away from 'Homos .
' But even more sickening is 'Commander Taco ' which sounds a bit like 'Commode in Taco, ' filthy gay slang for a pair of spreadeagled buttocks that are caked with excrement [ pboy.com ] .
( The best form of lubrication , they insist .
) Sometimes , these 'Taco Commodes ' have special 'Salsa Sauce ' ( blood from a ruptured rectum ) and 'Cheese ' ( rancid flakes of penis [ rotten.com ] discharge ) toppings .
And to make it even worse , Slashdot [ notslashdot.org ] runs on Apache !
The Apache [ microsoft.com ] server , whose use among fags is as prevalent as AIDS , is named after homosexual [ goatse.fr ] activity -- as everyone knows , popular faggot band , the Village People , featured an Apache Indian , and it is for him that this gay program is named.And that 's not forgetting the use of patches in the Linux fag world -- patches are used to make the anus accessible for repeated anal sex even after its rupture by a session of fisting.To summarise : Linux is gay .
'Slash -- Dot ' is the graphical description of the space between a young boy 's scrotum and anus .
And BeOS [ apple.com ] is for hermaphrodites and disabled 'stumpers .
' FEEDBACK What worries me is how much you know about what gay people do .
I 'm scared I actually read this whole thing .
I think this post is a good example of the negative effects of Internet usage on people .
This person obviously has no social life anymore and had to result to writing something as stupid as this .
And actually take the time to do it too .
Although... I think it was satire.. blah.. it 's early .
-- Anonymous Coward , SlashdotWell , the only reason I know all about this is because I had the misfortune to read the Linux 'Sauce code ' once .
Although publicised as the computer code needed to get Linux up and running on a computer ( and have n't you always been worried about the phrase 'Monolithic Kernel ' ?
) , this foul document is actually a detailed and graphic description of every conceivable degrading perversion known to the human race , as well as a few of the major animal species .
It has shocked and disturbed me , to the point of needing to shock and disturb the common man to warn them of the impending homo [ comp-u-geek.net ] -calypse which threatens to engulf our planet .
You must work for the government .
Trying to post the most obscene stuff in hopes that slashdot wo n't be able to continue or something , due to legal woes .
If i ever see your ugly face , i 'm going to stick my fireplace poker up your ass , after it 's nice and hot , to weld shut that nasty gaping hole of yours .
-- Anonymous Coward , SlashdotDoes n't it give you a hard-on to imagine your thick strong poker ramming it 's way up my most sacred of sphincters ?
You 're beyond help , my friend , as the only thing you can imagine is the foul penetrative violation of another man .
Are you sure you 're not Eric Raymond ?
The government , being populated by limp-wristed liberals , could never stem the sickening tide of homosexual [ goatse.fr ] child molesting Linux advocacy .
Hell , they 've given NAMBLA free reign for years !
you really should post this logged in .
i wish i could remember jebus 's password , cuz i 'd give it to you .
-- mighty jebus [ slashdot.org ] , SlashdotThank you for your kind words of support .
However , this document shall only ever be posted anonymously .
This is because the 'Open Sauce ' movement is a sham , proposing homoerotic cults of hero worshipping in the name of freedom .
I speak for the common man .
For any man who prefers the warm , enveloping velvet folds of a woman 's vagina [ bodysnatchers.co.uk ] to the tight puckered ringpiece of a child .
These men , being common , decent folk , do n't have a say in the political hypocrisy that is Slashdot culture .
I am the unknown liberator [ hitler.org ] .
ROLF LAMO i hate linux FAGGOTS -- Anonymous Coward , SlashdotWe should n't hate them , we should pity them for the misguided fools they are... Fanatical Linux zeal-outs need to be herded into camps for re-education and subsequent rehabilitation into normal heterosexual society .
This re-education shall be achieved by forcing them to watch repeats of Baywatch until the very mention of Pamela Anderson [ rotten.com ] causes them to fill their pants with healthy heterosexual jism [ zillabunny.com ] .
Actually , that 's not at all how scrotal inflation works .
I understand it involves injecting sterile saline solution into the scrotum .
I 've never tried this , but you can read how to do it safely in case you 're interested .
( Before you moderate this down , ask yourself honestly -- who are the real crazies -- people who do scrotal inflation , or people who pay $ 1000 + for a game console ?
) -- double \ _h [ slashdot.org ] , SlashdotWell , it just goes to show that even the holy Linux 'sauce code ' is riddled with bugs that need fixing .
( The irony of Jon Katz not even being able to inflate his scrotum correctly has not been lost on me .
) The Linux pervert elite already acknowledge this , with their queer slogan : 'Given enough arms , all rectums are shallow .
' And anyway , the PS2 [ xbox.com ] sucks major cock and is n't worth the money .
Intellivision forever !
dude did u used to post on msnbc 's nt bulletin board now that u are doing anti-gay posts u also need to start in with anti-black stuff too c u in church -- Anonymous Coward , SlashdotFor one thing , whilst Linux is a cavalcade of queer propaganda masquerading as the future of computing , NT [ linux.com ] is used by people who think nothing better of encasing their genitals in quick setting plaster then going to see a really dirty porno film , enjoying the restriction enforced onto them .
Remember , a wasted arousal is a sin in the eyes of the Catholic church [ atheism.org ] .
Clearly , the only god-fearing Christian operating system in existence is CP/M -- The Christian Program Monitor .
All computer users should immediately ask their local pastor to install this fine OS onto their systems .
It is the only route to salvation.Secondly , this message is for every man .
Computers know no colour .
Not only that , but one of the finest websites in the world is maintained by a Black Man [ stileproject.com ] .
Now fuck off you racist donkey felcher .
And do n't forget that slashdot was written in Perl , which is just too close to 'Pearl Necklace ' for comfort.... oh wait ; that 's something all you heterosexuals do.... I ca n't help but wonder how much faster the trolls could do First-Posts on this site if it were redone in PHP... I could hand-type dynamic HTML pages faster than Perl can do them .
-- phee [ slashdot.org ] , SlashdotAlthough there is nothing unholy about the fine heterosexual act of ejaculating between a woman 's breasts , squirting one 's load up towards her neck and chin area , it should be noted that Perl [ python.org ] ( standing for Pansies Entering Rectums Locally ) is also close to 'Pearl Monocle, ' 'Pearl Nosering, ' and the ubiquitous 'Pearl Enema .
'One scary thing about Perl [ sun.com ] is that it contains hidden homosexual [ goatse.fr ] messages .
Take the following code : LWP : : Simple -- It looks innocuous enough , does n't it ?
But look at the line closely : There are two colons next to each other !
As Larry 'Balls to the ' Wall would openly admit in the Perl Documentation , Perl was designed from the ground up to indoctrinate it 's programmers into performing unnatural sexual acts -- having two colons so closely together is clearly a reference to the perverse sickening act of 'colon kissing, ' whereby two homosexual [ goatse.fr ] queers spread their buttocks wide , pressing their filthy torn sphincters together .
They then share small round objects like marbles or golfballs by passing them from one rectum to another using muscle contraction alone .
This is also referred to in programming 'circles ' as 'Parameter Passing .
'And PHP [ perl.org ] stands for Perverted Homosexual Penetration .
Did n't you know ?
Thank you for your valuable input on this .
I am sure you will be never forgotten .
BTW : Did I mention that this could be useful in terraforming Mars ?
Mars rulaa .
-- Eimernase [ slashdot.org ] , SlashdotWell , I do n't know about terraforming Mars , but I do know that homosexual [ goatse.fr ] Linux Advocates have been probing Uranus for years .
That 's inspiring .
Keep up the good work , AC .
May God in his wisdom grant you the strength to bring the plain honest truth to this community , and make it pure again .
Yours , Cerberus .
-- Anonymous Coward , Slashdot * sniff * That brings a tear to my eye .
Thank you once more for your kind support .
I have taken faith in the knowledge that I am doing the Good Lord [ atheism.org ] 's work , but it is encouraging to know that I am helping out the common man here.However , I should be cautious about revealing your name 'Cerberus ' on such a filthy den of depravity as Slashdot .
It is a well known fact that the 'Kerberos ' documentation from Microsoft is a detailed manual describing , in intimate , exacting detail , how to sexually penetrate a variety of unwilling canine animals ; be they domesticated , wild , or mythical .
Slashdot posters have taken great pleasure in illegally spreading this documentation far and wide , treating it as an 'extension ' to the Linux 'Sauce Code, ' for the sake of 'interoperability .
' ( The slang term they use for nonconsensual intercourse -- their favourite kind .
) In fact , sick twisted Linux deviants are known to have LAN parties , ( Love of Anal Naughtiness , needless to say .
) , wherein they entice a stray dog , known as the 'Samba Mount, ' into their homes .
Up to four of these filth-sodden blasphemers against nature take turns to plunge their erect , throbbing , uncircumcised members , conkers-deep , into the rectum , mouth , and other fleshy orifices of the poor animal .
Eventually , the 'Samba Mount ' collapses due to 'overload, ' and needs to be 'rebooted .
' ( i.e. , kicked out into the street , and left to fend for itself .
) Many Linux users boast about their 'uptime ' in such situations .
Inspiring stuff !
If only all trolls were this quality !
-- Anonymous Coward , SlashdotIf only indeed .
You can help our brave cause by moderating this message up as often as possible .
I recommend ' + 1 , Underrated, ' as that will protect your precious Karma in Metamoderation [ slashdot.org ] .
Only then can we break through the glass ceiling of Homosexual Slashdot Culture .
Is it any wonder that the new version of Slashcode has been christened 'Bender ' ? ?
? If we can get just one of these postings up to at least ' + 1, ' then it will be archived forever !
Others will learn of our struggle , and join with us in our battle for freedom !
It 's pathetic you 've spent so much time writing this .
-- Anonymous Coward , SlashdotI am compelled to document the foulness and carnal depravity [ catholic.net ] that is Linux , in order that we may prepare ourselves for the great holy war that is to follow .
It is my solemn duty to peel back the foreskin of ignorance and apply the wire brush of enlightenment .
As with any great open-source project , you need someone asking this question , so I 'll do it .
When the hell is version 2.0 going to be ready ? ! ? !
-- Anonymous Coward , SlashdotI could make an arrogant , childish comment along the lines of 'Every time someone asks for 2.0 , I wo n't release it for another 24 hours, ' but the truth of the matter is that I 'm quite nervous of releasing a 'number two, ' as I can guarantee some filthy shit-slurping Linux pervert would want to suck it straight out of my anus before I 've even had chance to wipe .
I desperately want to suck your monolithic kernel , you sexy hunk , you .
-- Anonymous Coward , SlashdotI sincerely hope you 're Natalie Portman [ geocities.com ] .
Dude , nothing on slashdot larger than 3 paragraphs is worth reading .
Try to distill the message , whatever it was , and maybe I 'll read it .
As it is , I have to much open source software to write to waste even 10 seconds of precious time .
10 seconds is all its gon na take M $ to whoop Linux 's ass .
Vigilence is the price of Free ( as in libre -- from the fine , frou frou French language ) Software .
Hack on fellow geeks , and remember : Friday is Bouillabaisse day except for heathens who do not believe that Jesus died for their sins .
Those godless , oil drench , bearded sexist clowns can pull grits from their pantaloons ( another fine , fine French word ) and eat that .
Anyway , try to keep your message focused and concise .
For concision is the soul of derision .
Way. -- Anonymous Coward , SlashdotWhat the fuck ?
I 've read your gay conspiracy post version 1.3.0 and I must say I 'm impressed .
In particular , I appreciate how you have managed to squeeze in a healthy dose of the latent homosexuality you gay-bashing homos [ comp-u-geek.net ] tend to be full of .
Thank you again .
-- Anonymous Coward , SlashdotWell bugger me !
ooooh honey .
how insecure are you ! ! !
wann a little massage from deare bruci .
love you -- Anonymous Coward , SlashdotFuck right off ! IMPORTANT : This message needs to be heard ( Not HURD [ linux.org ] , which is an acronym for 'Huge Unclean Rectal Dilator ' ) across the whole community , so it has been released into the Public Domain [ icopyright.com ] .
You know , that licence that we all had before those homoerotic crypto-fascists came out with the GPL [ apple.com ] ( Gay Penetration License ) that is no more than an excuse to see who 's got the biggest feces-encrusted [ rotten.com ] cock .
I would have put this up on Freshmeat [ adultmember.com ] , but that name is known to be a euphemism for the tight rump of a young boy.Come to think of it , the whole concept of 'Source Control ' unnerves me , because it sounds a bit like 'Sauce Control, ' which is a description of the homosexual [ goatse.fr ] practice of holding the base of the cock shaft tightly upon the point of ejaculation , thus causing a build up of semenal fluid that is only released upon entry into an incision made into the base of the receiver 's scrotum .
And 'Open Sauce ' is the act of ejaculating into another mans face or perhaps a biscuit to be shared later .
Obviously , 'Closed Sauce ' is the only Christian thing to do , as evidenced by the fact that it is what Cathedrals are all about .
Contributors : ( although not to the eternal game of 'soggy biscuit ' that open 'sauce ' development has become ) Anonymous Coward , Anonymous Coward , phee , Anonymous Coward , mighty jebus , Anonymous Coward , Anonymous Coward , double \ _h , Anonymous Coward , Eimernase , Anonymous Coward , Anonymous Coward , Anonymous Coward , Anonymous Coward , Anonymous Coward , Anonymous Coward , Anonymous Coward , Anonymous Coward .
Further contributions are welcome .
Current changes : This version sent to FreeWIPO [ slashdot.org ] by 'Bring BackATV ' as plain text .
Reformatted everything , added all links back in ( that we could match from the previous version ) , many new ones ( Slashbot bait links ) .
Even more spelling fixed .
Who wrote this thing , CmdrTaco himself ?
Previous changes : Yet more changes added .
Spelling fixed .
Feedback added .
Explanation of 'distro ' system .
'Mount Point ' syntax described .
More filth regarding ` man ` and Slashdot .
Yet more fucking spelling fixed .
'Fetchmail ' uncovered further .
More Slashbot baiting .
Apache exposed .
Distribution licence at foot of document .
ANUX -- A full Linux distribution... Up your ass !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has come to my attention that the entire Linux community is a hotbed of so called 'alternative sexuality,' which includes anything from hedonistic orgies to homosexuality to pedophilia.What better way of demonstrating this than by looking at the hidden messages contained within the names of some of Linux's most outspoken advocates: Linus Torvalds [microsoft.com] is an anagram of slit anus or VD 'L,' clearly referring to himself by the first initial.
Richard M. Stallman [geocities.com], spokespervert for the Gaysex's Not Unusual 'movement' is an anagram of mans cram thrill ad.
Alan Cox [microsoft.com] is barely an anagram of anal cox which is just so filthy and unchristian it unnerves me.I'm sure that Eric S. Raymond, composer of the satanic homosexual [goatse.fr] propaganda diatribe The Cathedral and the Bizarre, is probably an anagram of something queer, but we don't need to look that far as we know he's always shoving a gun up some poor little boy's rectum.
Update: Eric S. Raymond is actually an anagram for secondary rim and cord in my arse.
It just goes to show you that he is indeed queer.
Update the Second: It is also documented that Evil Sicko Gaymond is responsible for a nauseating piece of code called Fetchmail [microsoft.com], which is obviously sinister sodomite slang for 'Felch Male' -- a disgusting practise.
For those not in the know, 'felching' is the act performed by two perverts wherein one sucks their own post-coital ejaculate out of the other's rectum.
In fact, it appears that the dirty Linux faggots set out to undermine the good Republican institution of e-mail, turning it into 'e-male.
'As far as Richard 'Master' Stallman goes, that filthy fudge-packer was actually quoted [salon.com] on leftist commie propaganda site Salon.com as saying the following: 'I've been resistant to the pressure to conform in any circumstance,' he says.
'It's about being able to question conventional wisdom,' he asserts.
'I believe in love, but not monogamy,' he says plainly.And this isn't a made up troll bullshit either!
He actually stated this tripe, which makes it obvious that he is trying to politely say that he's a flaming homo [comp-u-geek.net] slut [rotten.com]!Speaking about 'flaming,' who better to point out as a filthy chutney ferret than Slashdot's very own self-confessed pederast Jon Katz.
Although an obvious deviant anagram cannot be found from his name, he has already confessed, nay boasted of the homosexual [goatse.fr] perversion of corrupting the innocence of young children [slashdot.org].
To quote from the article linked:'I've got a rare kidney disease,' I told her.
'I have to go to the bathroom a lot.
You can come with me if you want, but it takes a while.
Is that okay with you?
Do you want a note from my doctor?
'Is this why you were touching your penis [rotten.com] in the cinema, Jon?
And letting the other boys touch it too?We should also point out that Jon Katz refers to himself as 'Slashdot's resident Gasbag.
' Is there any more doubt?
For those fortunate few who aren't aware of the list of homosexual [goatse.fr] terminology found inside the Linux 'Sauce Code,' a 'Gasbag' is a pervert who gains sexual gratification from having a thin straw inserted into his urethra (or to use the common parlance, 'piss-pipe'), then his homosexual [goatse.fr] lover blows firmly down the straw to inflate his scrotum.
This is, of course, when he's not busy violating the dignity and copyright of posters to Slashdot by gathering together their postings and publishing them en masse to further his twisted and manipulative journalistic agenda.Sick, disgusting antichristian perverts, the lot of them.In addition, many of the Linux distributions (a 'distribution' is the most common way to spread the faggots' wares) are run by faggot groups.
The Slackware [redhat.com] distro is named after the 'Slack-wear' fags wear to allow easy access to the anus for sexual purposes.
Furthermore, Slackware is a close anagram of claw arse, a reference to the homosexual [goatse.fr] practise of anal fisting.
The Mandrake [slackware.com] product is run by a group of French faggot satanists, and is named after the faggot nickname for the vibrator.
It was also chosen because it is an anagram for dark amen and ram naked, which is what they do.Another 'distro,' (abbrieviated as such because it sounds a bit like 'Disco,' which is where homosexuals [goatse.fr] preyed on young boys in the 1970s), is Debian, [mandrake.com] an anagram of in a bed, which could be considered innocent enough (after all, a bed is both where we sleep and pray), until we realise what other names Debian uses to describe their foul wares.
'Woody' is obvious enough, being a term for the erect male penis [rotten.com], glistening with pre-cum.
But far sicker is the phrase 'Frozen Potato' that they use.
This filthy term, again found in the secret homosexual [goatse.fr] 'Sauce Code,' refers to the solo homosexual [goatse.fr] practice of defecating into a clear polythene bag, shaping the turd into a crude approximation of the male phallus, then leaving it in the freezer overnight until it becomes solid.
The practitioner then proceeds to push the frozen 'potato' up his own rectum, squeezing it in and out until his tight young balls erupt in a screaming orgasm.And Red Hat [debian.org] is secret homo [comp-u-geek.net] slang for the tip of a penis [rotten.com] that is soaked in blood from a freshly violated underage ringpiece.The fags have even invented special tools to aid their faggotry!
For example, the 'supermount' tool was devised to allow deeper penetration, which is good for fags because it gives more pressure on the prostate gland.
'Automount' is used, on the other hand, because Linux users are all fat and gay, and need to mount each other [comp-u-geek.net] automatically.The depths of their depravity can be seen in their use of 'mount points.
' These are, plainly speaking, the different points of penetration.
The main one is obviously/anus, but there are others.
Militant fags even say 'there is no/opt mount point' because for these dirty perverts faggotry is not optional but a way of life.More evidence is in the fact that Linux users say how much they love `man`, even going so far as to say that all new Linux users (who are in fact just innocent heterosexuals indoctrinated by the gay propaganda) should try out `man`.
In no other system do users boast of their frequent recourse to a man.Other areas of the system also show Linux's inherit gayness.
For example, people are often told of the 'FAQ,' but how many innocent heterosexual Windows [amiga.com] users know what this actually means.
The answer is shocking: Faggot Anal Quest: the voyage of discovery for newly converted fags!Even the title 'Slashdot [geekizoid.com]' originally referred to a homosexual [goatse.fr] practice.
Slashdot [kuro5hin.org] of course refers to the popular gay practice of blood-letting.
The Slashbots, of course are those super-zealous homosexuals [goatse.fr] who take this perversion to its extreme by ripping open their anuses, as seen on the site most popular with Slashdot users, the depraved work of Satan, http://www.eff.org/ [eff.org].The editors of Slashdot [slashduh.org] also have homosexual [goatse.fr] names: 'Hemos' is obvious in itself, being one vowel away from 'Homos.
' But even more sickening is 'Commander Taco' which sounds a bit like 'Commode in Taco,' filthy gay slang for a pair of spreadeagled buttocks that are caked with excrement [pboy.com].
(The best form of lubrication, they insist.
) Sometimes, these 'Taco Commodes' have special 'Salsa Sauce' (blood from a ruptured rectum) and 'Cheese' (rancid flakes of penis [rotten.com] discharge) toppings.
And to make it even worse, Slashdot [notslashdot.org] runs on Apache!
The Apache [microsoft.com] server, whose use among fags is as prevalent as AIDS, is named after homosexual [goatse.fr] activity -- as everyone knows, popular faggot band, the Village People, featured an Apache Indian, and it is for him that this gay program is named.And that's not forgetting the use of patches in the Linux fag world -- patches are used to make the anus accessible for repeated anal sex even after its rupture by a session of fisting.To summarise: Linux is gay.
'Slash -- Dot' is the graphical description of the space between a young boy's scrotum and anus.
And BeOS [apple.com] is for hermaphrodites and disabled 'stumpers.
' FEEDBACK  What worries me is how much you know about what gay people do.
I'm scared I actually read this whole thing.
I think this post is a good example of the negative effects of Internet usage on people.
This person obviously has no social life anymore and had to result to writing something as stupid as this.
And actually take the time to do it too.
Although... I think it was satire.. blah.. it's early.
-- Anonymous Coward, SlashdotWell, the only reason I know all about this is because I had the misfortune to read the Linux 'Sauce code' once.
Although publicised as the computer code needed to get Linux up and running on a computer (and haven't you always been worried about the phrase 'Monolithic Kernel'?
), this foul document is actually a detailed and graphic description of every conceivable degrading perversion known to the human race, as well as a few of the major animal species.
It has shocked and disturbed me, to the point of needing to shock and disturb the common man to warn them of the impending homo [comp-u-geek.net]-calypse which threatens to engulf our planet.
You must work for the government.
Trying to post the most obscene stuff in hopes that slashdot won't be able to continue or something, due to legal woes.
If i ever see your ugly face, i'm going to stick my fireplace poker up your ass, after it's nice and hot, to weld shut that nasty gaping hole of yours.
-- Anonymous Coward, SlashdotDoesn't it give you a hard-on to imagine your thick strong poker ramming it's way up my most sacred of sphincters?
You're beyond help, my friend, as the only thing you can imagine is the foul penetrative violation of another man.
Are you sure you're not Eric Raymond?
The government, being populated by limp-wristed liberals, could never stem the sickening tide of homosexual [goatse.fr] child molesting Linux advocacy.
Hell, they've given NAMBLA free reign for years!
you really should post this logged in.
i wish i could remember jebus's password, cuz i'd give it to you.
-- mighty jebus [slashdot.org], SlashdotThank you for your kind words of support.
However, this document shall only ever be posted anonymously.
This is because the 'Open Sauce' movement is a sham, proposing homoerotic cults of hero worshipping in the name of freedom.
I speak for the common man.
For any man who prefers the warm, enveloping velvet folds of a woman's vagina [bodysnatchers.co.uk] to the tight puckered ringpiece of a child.
These men, being common, decent folk, don't have a say in the political hypocrisy that is Slashdot culture.
I am the unknown liberator [hitler.org].
ROLF LAMO i hate linux FAGGOTS -- Anonymous Coward, SlashdotWe shouldn't hate them, we should pity them for the misguided fools they are... Fanatical Linux zeal-outs need to be herded into camps for re-education and subsequent rehabilitation into normal heterosexual society.
This re-education shall be achieved by forcing them to watch repeats of Baywatch until the very mention of Pamela Anderson [rotten.com] causes them to fill their pants with healthy heterosexual jism [zillabunny.com].
Actually, that's not at all how scrotal inflation works.
I understand it involves injecting sterile saline solution into the scrotum.
I've never tried this, but you can read how to do it safely in case you're interested.
(Before you moderate this down, ask yourself honestly -- who are the real crazies -- people who do scrotal inflation, or people who pay $1000+ for a game console?
) -- double\_h [slashdot.org], SlashdotWell, it just goes to show that even the holy Linux 'sauce code' is riddled with bugs that need fixing.
(The irony of Jon Katz not even being able to inflate his scrotum correctly has not been lost on me.
) The Linux pervert elite already acknowledge this, with their queer slogan: 'Given enough arms, all rectums are shallow.
' And anyway, the PS2 [xbox.com] sucks major cock and isn't worth the money.
Intellivision forever!
dude did u used to post on msnbc's nt bulletin board now that u are doing anti-gay posts u also need to start in with anti-black stuff too c u in church -- Anonymous Coward, SlashdotFor one thing, whilst Linux is a cavalcade of queer propaganda masquerading as the future of computing, NT [linux.com] is used by people who think nothing better of encasing their genitals in quick setting plaster then going to see a really dirty porno film, enjoying the restriction enforced onto them.
Remember, a wasted arousal is a sin in the eyes of the Catholic church [atheism.org].
Clearly, the only god-fearing Christian operating system in existence is CP/M -- The Christian Program Monitor.
All computer users should immediately ask their local pastor to install this fine OS onto their systems.
It is the only route to salvation.Secondly, this message is for every man.
Computers know no colour.
Not only that, but one of the finest websites in the world is maintained by  a Black Man [stileproject.com] .
Now fuck off you racist donkey felcher.
And don't forget that slashdot was written in Perl, which is just too close to 'Pearl Necklace' for comfort.... oh wait; that's something all you heterosexuals do.... I can't help but wonder how much faster the trolls could do First-Posts on this site if it were redone in PHP... I could hand-type dynamic HTML pages faster than Perl can do them.
-- phee [slashdot.org], SlashdotAlthough there is nothing unholy about the fine heterosexual act of ejaculating between a woman's breasts, squirting one's load up towards her neck and chin area, it should be noted that Perl [python.org] (standing for Pansies Entering Rectums Locally) is also close to 'Pearl Monocle,' 'Pearl Nosering,' and the ubiquitous 'Pearl Enema.
'One scary thing about Perl [sun.com] is that it contains hidden homosexual [goatse.fr] messages.
Take the following code: LWP::Simple -- It looks innocuous enough, doesn't it?
But look at the line closely: There are two colons next to each other!
As Larry 'Balls to the' Wall would openly admit in the Perl Documentation, Perl was designed from the ground up to indoctrinate it's programmers into performing unnatural sexual acts -- having two colons so closely together is clearly a reference to the perverse sickening act of 'colon kissing,' whereby two homosexual [goatse.fr] queers spread their buttocks wide, pressing their filthy torn sphincters together.
They then share small round objects like marbles or golfballs by passing them from one rectum to another using muscle contraction alone.
This is also referred to in programming 'circles' as 'Parameter Passing.
'And PHP [perl.org] stands for Perverted Homosexual Penetration.
Didn't you know?
Thank you for your valuable input on this.
I am sure you will be never forgotten.
BTW: Did I mention that this could be useful in terraforming Mars?
Mars rulaa.
-- Eimernase [slashdot.org], SlashdotWell, I don't know about terraforming Mars, but I do know that homosexual [goatse.fr] Linux Advocates have been probing Uranus for years.
That's inspiring.
Keep up the good work, AC.
May God in his wisdom grant you the strength to bring the plain honest truth to this community, and make it pure again.
Yours, Cerberus.
-- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot *sniff* That brings a tear to my eye.
Thank you once more for your kind support.
I have taken faith in the knowledge that I am doing the Good Lord [atheism.org]'s work, but it is encouraging to know that I am helping out the common man here.However, I should be cautious about revealing your name 'Cerberus' on such a filthy den of depravity as Slashdot.
It is a well known fact that the 'Kerberos' documentation from Microsoft is a detailed manual describing, in intimate, exacting detail, how to sexually penetrate a variety of unwilling canine animals; be they domesticated, wild, or mythical.
Slashdot posters have taken great pleasure in illegally spreading this documentation far and wide, treating it as an 'extension' to the Linux 'Sauce Code,' for the sake of 'interoperability.
' (The slang term they use for nonconsensual intercourse -- their favourite kind.
)In fact, sick twisted Linux deviants are known to have LAN parties, (Love of Anal Naughtiness, needless to say.
), wherein they entice a stray dog, known as the 'Samba Mount,' into their homes.
Up to four of these filth-sodden blasphemers against nature take turns to plunge their erect, throbbing, uncircumcised members, conkers-deep, into the rectum, mouth, and other fleshy orifices of the poor animal.
Eventually, the 'Samba Mount' collapses due to 'overload,' and needs to be 'rebooted.
' (i.e., kicked out into the street, and left to fend for itself.
) Many Linux users boast about their 'uptime' in such situations.
Inspiring stuff!
If only all trolls were this quality!
-- Anonymous Coward, SlashdotIf only indeed.
You can help our brave cause by moderating this message up as often as possible.
I recommend '+1, Underrated,' as that will protect your precious Karma in Metamoderation [slashdot.org].
Only then can we break through the glass ceiling of Homosexual Slashdot Culture.
Is it any wonder that the new version of Slashcode has been christened 'Bender'??
?If we can get just one of these postings up to at least '+1,' then it will be archived forever!
Others will learn of our struggle, and join with us in our battle for freedom!
It's pathetic you've spent so much time writing this.
-- Anonymous Coward, SlashdotI am compelled to document the foulness and carnal depravity [catholic.net] that is Linux, in order that we may prepare ourselves for the great holy war that is to follow.
It is my solemn duty to peel back the foreskin of ignorance and apply the wire brush of enlightenment.
As with any great open-source project, you need someone asking this question, so I'll do it.
When the hell is version 2.0 going to be ready?!?!
-- Anonymous Coward, SlashdotI could make an arrogant, childish comment along the lines of 'Every time someone asks for 2.0, I won't release it for another 24 hours,' but the truth of the matter is that I'm quite nervous of releasing a 'number two,' as I can guarantee some filthy shit-slurping Linux pervert would want to suck it straight out of my anus before I've even had chance to wipe.
I desperately want to suck your monolithic kernel, you sexy hunk, you.
-- Anonymous Coward, SlashdotI sincerely hope you're Natalie Portman [geocities.com].
Dude, nothing on slashdot larger than 3 paragraphs is worth reading.
Try to distill the message, whatever it was, and maybe I'll read it.
As it is, I have to much open source software to write to waste even 10 seconds of precious time.
10 seconds is all its gonna take M$ to whoop Linux's ass.
Vigilence is the price of Free (as in libre -- from the fine, frou frou French language) Software.
Hack on fellow geeks, and remember: Friday is Bouillabaisse day except for heathens who do not believe that Jesus died for their sins.
Those godless, oil drench, bearded sexist clowns can pull grits from their pantaloons (another fine, fine French word) and eat that.
Anyway, try to keep your message focused and concise.
For concision is the soul of derision.
Way. -- Anonymous Coward, SlashdotWhat the fuck?
I've read your gay conspiracy post version 1.3.0 and I must say I'm impressed.
In particular, I appreciate how you have managed to squeeze in a healthy dose of the latent homosexuality you gay-bashing homos [comp-u-geek.net] tend to be full of.
Thank you again.
-- Anonymous Coward, SlashdotWell bugger me!
ooooh honey.
how insecure are you!!!
wann a little massage from deare bruci.
love you -- Anonymous Coward, SlashdotFuck right off!IMPORTANT: This message needs to be heard (Not HURD [linux.org], which is an acronym for 'Huge Unclean Rectal Dilator') across the whole community, so it has been released into the Public Domain [icopyright.com].
You know, that licence that we all had before those homoerotic crypto-fascists came out with the GPL [apple.com] (Gay Penetration License) that is no more than an excuse to see who's got the biggest feces-encrusted [rotten.com] cock.
I would have put this up on Freshmeat [adultmember.com], but that name is known to be a euphemism for the tight rump of a young boy.Come to think of it, the whole concept of 'Source Control' unnerves me, because it sounds a bit like 'Sauce Control,' which is a description of the homosexual [goatse.fr] practice of holding the base of the cock shaft tightly upon the point of ejaculation, thus causing a build up of semenal fluid that is only released upon entry into an incision made into the base of the receiver's scrotum.
And 'Open Sauce' is the act of ejaculating into another mans face or perhaps a biscuit to be shared later.
Obviously, 'Closed Sauce' is the only Christian thing to do, as evidenced by the fact that it is what Cathedrals are all about.
Contributors: (although not to the eternal game of 'soggy biscuit' that open 'sauce' development has become) Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, phee, Anonymous Coward, mighty jebus, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, double\_h, Anonymous Coward, Eimernase, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward.
Further contributions are welcome.
Current changes: This version sent to  FreeWIPO  [slashdot.org] by 'Bring BackATV' as plain text.
Reformatted everything, added all links back in (that we could match from the previous version), many new ones (Slashbot bait links).
Even more spelling fixed.
Who wrote this thing, CmdrTaco himself?
Previous changes: Yet more changes added.
Spelling fixed.
Feedback added.
Explanation of 'distro' system.
'Mount Point' syntax described.
More filth regarding `man` and Slashdot.
Yet more fucking spelling fixed.
'Fetchmail' uncovered further.
More Slashbot baiting.
Apache exposed.
Distribution licence at foot of document.
ANUX -- A full Linux distribution... Up your ass!  
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28616581</id>
	<title>Re:Fallout</title>
	<author>Tubal-Cain</author>
	<datestamp>1246976460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Don't worry...there are still plenty of ways to create wastelands.</p></div><p>Why not use <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AntarcticaDomeCSnow.jpg" title="wikipedia.org">what</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kluft-photo-Black-Rock-Desert-Aug-2005-Img\_5081.jpg" title="wikipedia.org">we</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DirkvdM\_santa\_fe\_scorched.jpg" title="wikipedia.org">have</a> [wikipedia.org] before creating more?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry...there are still plenty of ways to create wastelands.Why not use what [ wikipedia.org ] we [ wikipedia.org ] have [ wikipedia.org ] before creating more ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry...there are still plenty of ways to create wastelands.Why not use what [wikipedia.org] we [wikipedia.org] have [wikipedia.org] before creating more?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28609975</id>
	<title>Re:Down to 95\% of the world's arsenals!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246988760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's not our number of nukes that allows us to preach to Iran and N. Korea, it's the fact that our leaders are held to certain standards. Our presidents get in trouble for misspeaking or forgetting to bow or not dispensing enough foreign aid</p></div></blockquote><p>

And somehow they have stayed out of trouble while running banana republics, supporting dictators, toppling democracies, torching villages and torturing people..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not our number of nukes that allows us to preach to Iran and N. Korea , it 's the fact that our leaders are held to certain standards .
Our presidents get in trouble for misspeaking or forgetting to bow or not dispensing enough foreign aid And somehow they have stayed out of trouble while running banana republics , supporting dictators , toppling democracies , torching villages and torturing people. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not our number of nukes that allows us to preach to Iran and N. Korea, it's the fact that our leaders are held to certain standards.
Our presidents get in trouble for misspeaking or forgetting to bow or not dispensing enough foreign aid

And somehow they have stayed out of trouble while running banana republics, supporting dictators, toppling democracies, torching villages and torturing people..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606827</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28660155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28617713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607895
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28611007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28613567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28609681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28613965
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28609071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28614363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28618583
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28609759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28611201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28610319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28609679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608755
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28619489
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28616581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28609009
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28611267
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28609975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28610101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28620157
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28615925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607343
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28609189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28613165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28616267
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28611589
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28613551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28613217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28610327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28609043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28611231
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607683
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28611955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28616787
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28610961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28610559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28617317
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607345
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607129
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28613913
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28609207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28616707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28616319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607755
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28610347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28610867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28619745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607153
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28609969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28610557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28615915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28620007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28616741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607147
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28615999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28611433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28610927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608185
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1155236_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28613957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28618291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1155236.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28617713
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28611433
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1155236.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28613965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28620157
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1155236.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28610199
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1155236.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606907
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1155236.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606827
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28616267
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607173
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607667
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28616319
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28660155
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607535
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28610557
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28613957
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28618291
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28618583
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28616787
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28610327
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28620007
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607705
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28611589
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607635
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28611955
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607477
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608647
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28613913
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28616707
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28609969
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28609975
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28611007
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28610867
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607291
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607445
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607551
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607641
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608083
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1155236.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606971
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1155236.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607235
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1155236.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606569
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28610927
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1155236.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606989
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607895
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1155236.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608397
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608687
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28613567
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1155236.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607909
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28609071
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28614363
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1155236.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607223
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607603
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608713
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607175
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28609759
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607653
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28609207
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1155236.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28610559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28617317
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1155236.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28609189
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606965
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607345
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606909
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28616581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607343
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607169
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28615999
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28610319
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1155236.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28616091
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1155236.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606853
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607147
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1155236.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606975
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608393
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28610101
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608781
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608091
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28615915
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28613551
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28611201
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608325
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28610961
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608185
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606927
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1155236.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28613165
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607947
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607509
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28613217
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28609043
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28610347
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28608143
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28615925
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28611231
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28619489
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28609009
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28609679
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28609681
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28619745
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28611267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607683
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607153
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28607679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28616741
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1155236.28606883
</commentlist>
</conversation>
