<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_14_1829231</id>
	<title>Wikipedia Debates Rorschach Censorship</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1247560680000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>GigsVT writes <i>"Editors on Wikipedia are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rorschach\_test">engaged in an epic battle</a> over a few piece of paper smeared with ink. The 10 inkblot images that form the classic <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach\_test">Rorschach test</a> have fallen into the public domain, and so including them on Wikipedia would seem to be a simple choice. However, some editors have cited the American Psychological Association's statement that exposure of the images to the public is an unethical act, since prior exposure to the images could render them ineffective as a psychological test. Is the censorship of material appropriate, when the public exposure to that material may render it useless?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>GigsVT writes " Editors on Wikipedia are engaged in an epic battle over a few piece of paper smeared with ink .
The 10 inkblot images that form the classic Rorschach test have fallen into the public domain , and so including them on Wikipedia would seem to be a simple choice .
However , some editors have cited the American Psychological Association 's statement that exposure of the images to the public is an unethical act , since prior exposure to the images could render them ineffective as a psychological test .
Is the censorship of material appropriate , when the public exposure to that material may render it useless ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GigsVT writes "Editors on Wikipedia are engaged in an epic battle over a few piece of paper smeared with ink.
The 10 inkblot images that form the classic Rorschach test have fallen into the public domain, and so including them on Wikipedia would seem to be a simple choice.
However, some editors have cited the American Psychological Association's statement that exposure of the images to the public is an unethical act, since prior exposure to the images could render them ineffective as a psychological test.
Is the censorship of material appropriate, when the public exposure to that material may render it useless?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697091</id>
	<title>fair game</title>
	<author>ILongForDarkness</author>
	<datestamp>1247569620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they wanted it regulated they should have registered it as a medical device. They didn't, they copyrighted it and copyrights expire.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they wanted it regulated they should have registered it as a medical device .
They did n't , they copyrighted it and copyrights expire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they wanted it regulated they should have registered it as a medical device.
They didn't, they copyrighted it and copyrights expire.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695969</id>
	<title>Public Domain Man</title>
	<author>MightyMartian</author>
	<datestamp>1247564640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they're in the public domain, then they're in the public domain, and that ends it.  I'm sure the APA can come up with some new, copyrighted ink blot tests.  Perhaps they could involve images of Tom Cruise and L. Ron Hubbard in various disturbing poses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 're in the public domain , then they 're in the public domain , and that ends it .
I 'm sure the APA can come up with some new , copyrighted ink blot tests .
Perhaps they could involve images of Tom Cruise and L. Ron Hubbard in various disturbing poses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they're in the public domain, then they're in the public domain, and that ends it.
I'm sure the APA can come up with some new, copyrighted ink blot tests.
Perhaps they could involve images of Tom Cruise and L. Ron Hubbard in various disturbing poses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28700527</id>
	<title>Re:I thought they..</title>
	<author>DTemp</author>
	<datestamp>1247597460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, but this is when happens when computer geeks, people who deal everyday with logic and structure, comment on psychology.  Human psychology does not run by the same rules, especially in abnormal patients, when logic and structure go out the window.  There are no wrong or correct answers to the individual images in this test; a trained administrator will listen to the answers as a group, and listen to the manner in which the subject spoke the answers, to look for clues of psychosis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but this is when happens when computer geeks , people who deal everyday with logic and structure , comment on psychology .
Human psychology does not run by the same rules , especially in abnormal patients , when logic and structure go out the window .
There are no wrong or correct answers to the individual images in this test ; a trained administrator will listen to the answers as a group , and listen to the manner in which the subject spoke the answers , to look for clues of psychosis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but this is when happens when computer geeks, people who deal everyday with logic and structure, comment on psychology.
Human psychology does not run by the same rules, especially in abnormal patients, when logic and structure go out the window.
There are no wrong or correct answers to the individual images in this test; a trained administrator will listen to the answers as a group, and listen to the manner in which the subject spoke the answers, to look for clues of psychosis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28698171</id>
	<title>Re:I thought they..</title>
	<author>Score Whore</author>
	<datestamp>1247576280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A psychiatrist or psychologist? Cause one of them has a medical degree and the other doesn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A psychiatrist or psychologist ?
Cause one of them has a medical degree and the other does n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A psychiatrist or psychologist?
Cause one of them has a medical degree and the other doesn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696849</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696035</id>
	<title>Too late to worry about quack science</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1247564820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"since prior exposure to the images could render them ineffective as a psychological test"</p><p>They were ineffective the day they were invented. This is VooDoo science it's best, and public exposure of it as a sham is long over do.</p><p>This stuff isn't even being taught anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" since prior exposure to the images could render them ineffective as a psychological test " They were ineffective the day they were invented .
This is VooDoo science it 's best , and public exposure of it as a sham is long over do.This stuff is n't even being taught anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"since prior exposure to the images could render them ineffective as a psychological test"They were ineffective the day they were invented.
This is VooDoo science it's best, and public exposure of it as a sham is long over do.This stuff isn't even being taught anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697823</id>
	<title>Why not give the reader the option?</title>
	<author>DingoTango</author>
	<datestamp>1247573760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wikipedia could post the pictures "after the jump", and allow readers the choice to view them -- after reading a disclaimer that prior viewing could diminish their utility in therapy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia could post the pictures " after the jump " , and allow readers the choice to view them -- after reading a disclaimer that prior viewing could diminish their utility in therapy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia could post the pictures "after the jump", and allow readers the choice to view them -- after reading a disclaimer that prior viewing could diminish their utility in therapy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696021</id>
	<title>Big blobbling loss</title>
	<author>mwvdlee</author>
	<datestamp>1247564820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The tests were unreliable to begin with.<br>So now an unreliable test can't be used anymore.<br>The only one who loses is psychologists, which is no loss at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The tests were unreliable to begin with.So now an unreliable test ca n't be used anymore.The only one who loses is psychologists , which is no loss at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The tests were unreliable to begin with.So now an unreliable test can't be used anymore.The only one who loses is psychologists, which is no loss at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28698801</id>
	<title>Arrogant asshole posters</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1247581080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My god we on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. are the most arrogant collection of bastard know it alls that have ever been assembled in one place.  Pompous asshats all of us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My god we on / .
are the most arrogant collection of bastard know it alls that have ever been assembled in one place .
Pompous asshats all of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My god we on /.
are the most arrogant collection of bastard know it alls that have ever been assembled in one place.
Pompous asshats all of us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696433</id>
	<title>Same for Polygraph?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247566320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If someone posted a detailed, in-depth article explaining how a polygraph works with the bottom-line of "the machine actually does nothing but draw on paper, its the interviewer who makes the decisions" would that article also be subject to censoring?  If the public begins to view the polygraph as utter nonsense, wouldn't that also undermine its utility?</p><p><a href="antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtm" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Anti-Polygraph</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone posted a detailed , in-depth article explaining how a polygraph works with the bottom-line of " the machine actually does nothing but draw on paper , its the interviewer who makes the decisions " would that article also be subject to censoring ?
If the public begins to view the polygraph as utter nonsense , would n't that also undermine its utility ? Anti-Polygraph [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If someone posted a detailed, in-depth article explaining how a polygraph works with the bottom-line of "the machine actually does nothing but draw on paper, its the interviewer who makes the decisions" would that article also be subject to censoring?
If the public begins to view the polygraph as utter nonsense, wouldn't that also undermine its utility?Anti-Polygraph [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697449</id>
	<title>Re:they all look like</title>
	<author>Jeremi</author>
	<datestamp>1247571300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Giant carrot people drinking from bottles while playing musical instruments</i></p><p>Curse you, you've discovered the secret!  Sorry goffster, but we're going to have to kill you now.  We hate to do it, but we can't risk you telling anyone else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Giant carrot people drinking from bottles while playing musical instrumentsCurse you , you 've discovered the secret !
Sorry goffster , but we 're going to have to kill you now .
We hate to do it , but we ca n't risk you telling anyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Giant carrot people drinking from bottles while playing musical instrumentsCurse you, you've discovered the secret!
Sorry goffster, but we're going to have to kill you now.
We hate to do it, but we can't risk you telling anyone else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696069</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28700373</id>
	<title>Re:I thought they..</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1247595600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not like there's a manual somewhere that says if the patient things this bit is an albatross they have abandonment issues or anything like that.</p><p>The test is to present the subject with meaningless and novel images and observe how much or how little they can willingly see in them, how they organize their responses, perhaps if a theme develops in what they see, etc. Yes, none of that is as objective as a crackling sound heard with the stethoscope when the patient inhales, but so it goes with something as intangible and hard to define as the mind.</p><p>Naturally, the images aren't terribly novel if everyone's seen them before and trendy people hang them on their walls. Unlike macroscopic physical objects but quite like subatomic objects, you can't observe a mind without somehow influencing it. That's not an ideal situation for psychology, but unless someone has a truly ingenious way around that, it's the best we can do.</p><p>I'm not saying the Rorschach test isn't crap, just saying why it might not be and why we can't do better right now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not like there 's a manual somewhere that says if the patient things this bit is an albatross they have abandonment issues or anything like that.The test is to present the subject with meaningless and novel images and observe how much or how little they can willingly see in them , how they organize their responses , perhaps if a theme develops in what they see , etc .
Yes , none of that is as objective as a crackling sound heard with the stethoscope when the patient inhales , but so it goes with something as intangible and hard to define as the mind.Naturally , the images are n't terribly novel if everyone 's seen them before and trendy people hang them on their walls .
Unlike macroscopic physical objects but quite like subatomic objects , you ca n't observe a mind without somehow influencing it .
That 's not an ideal situation for psychology , but unless someone has a truly ingenious way around that , it 's the best we can do.I 'm not saying the Rorschach test is n't crap , just saying why it might not be and why we ca n't do better right now : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not like there's a manual somewhere that says if the patient things this bit is an albatross they have abandonment issues or anything like that.The test is to present the subject with meaningless and novel images and observe how much or how little they can willingly see in them, how they organize their responses, perhaps if a theme develops in what they see, etc.
Yes, none of that is as objective as a crackling sound heard with the stethoscope when the patient inhales, but so it goes with something as intangible and hard to define as the mind.Naturally, the images aren't terribly novel if everyone's seen them before and trendy people hang them on their walls.
Unlike macroscopic physical objects but quite like subatomic objects, you can't observe a mind without somehow influencing it.
That's not an ideal situation for psychology, but unless someone has a truly ingenious way around that, it's the best we can do.I'm not saying the Rorschach test isn't crap, just saying why it might not be and why we can't do better right now :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696069</id>
	<title>they all look like</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247564940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Giant carrot people drinking from bottles while playing musical instruments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Giant carrot people drinking from bottles while playing musical instruments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Giant carrot people drinking from bottles while playing musical instruments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696217</id>
	<title>Wait until the optometrists...</title>
	<author>dpbsmith</author>
	<datestamp>1247565540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait until the optometrists discover that Wikipedia is using an uncensored <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snellen\_chart" title="wikipedia.org">Snellen eye chart</a> [wikipedia.org]. Pssst! The big letter at the top is an "E."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait until the optometrists discover that Wikipedia is using an uncensored Snellen eye chart [ wikipedia.org ] .
Pssst ! The big letter at the top is an " E. "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait until the optometrists discover that Wikipedia is using an uncensored Snellen eye chart [wikipedia.org].
Pssst! The big letter at the top is an "E."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695973</id>
	<title>Re:I thought they..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247564640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The test is, and always has been, pop-psychology nonsense.  It's a cold reading in a phony clinical setting.  The diagnoses is always "more costly therapy sessions".</p><p>This is like the association of soothsayers trying to supress the "secret" of tarot or tea leave reading, because if everybody knows it wont be magic anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The test is , and always has been , pop-psychology nonsense .
It 's a cold reading in a phony clinical setting .
The diagnoses is always " more costly therapy sessions " .This is like the association of soothsayers trying to supress the " secret " of tarot or tea leave reading , because if everybody knows it wont be magic anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The test is, and always has been, pop-psychology nonsense.
It's a cold reading in a phony clinical setting.
The diagnoses is always "more costly therapy sessions".This is like the association of soothsayers trying to supress the "secret" of tarot or tea leave reading, because if everybody knows it wont be magic anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696213</id>
	<title>Psychologists are not scientists</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1247565540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>However, some editors have cited the American Psychological Association's statement that exposure of the images to the public is an unethical act, since prior exposure to the images could render them ineffective as a psychological test.</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Which goes to show just how full of BS some psychologists are. Either the test is completely subjective and not dependent on the particular ink-blot pattern, so stop being lazy and make your own damned ink blots; OR some psychologists are depending too heavily on their interpretation of a Rorschach "test" during their practice.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; As a physician I completely understand the subjective nature of psychoanalysis and I recognize its value in treating certain psychiatric disorders. However psychology is not entirely dependent on the Rorschach test and appropriate diagnoses can be reached easily without that test by any skilled practitioner, and anyone complaining about the diagrams being viewed by the public could also argue that all medical information should be with-held from the public. After all, we wouldn't want all those hypochondriacs and somatization disorder sufferers to get any ideas, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However , some editors have cited the American Psychological Association 's statement that exposure of the images to the public is an unethical act , since prior exposure to the images could render them ineffective as a psychological test .
      Which goes to show just how full of BS some psychologists are .
Either the test is completely subjective and not dependent on the particular ink-blot pattern , so stop being lazy and make your own damned ink blots ; OR some psychologists are depending too heavily on their interpretation of a Rorschach " test " during their practice .
      As a physician I completely understand the subjective nature of psychoanalysis and I recognize its value in treating certain psychiatric disorders .
However psychology is not entirely dependent on the Rorschach test and appropriate diagnoses can be reached easily without that test by any skilled practitioner , and anyone complaining about the diagrams being viewed by the public could also argue that all medical information should be with-held from the public .
After all , we would n't want all those hypochondriacs and somatization disorder sufferers to get any ideas , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, some editors have cited the American Psychological Association's statement that exposure of the images to the public is an unethical act, since prior exposure to the images could render them ineffective as a psychological test.
      Which goes to show just how full of BS some psychologists are.
Either the test is completely subjective and not dependent on the particular ink-blot pattern, so stop being lazy and make your own damned ink blots; OR some psychologists are depending too heavily on their interpretation of a Rorschach "test" during their practice.
      As a physician I completely understand the subjective nature of psychoanalysis and I recognize its value in treating certain psychiatric disorders.
However psychology is not entirely dependent on the Rorschach test and appropriate diagnoses can be reached easily without that test by any skilled practitioner, and anyone complaining about the diagrams being viewed by the public could also argue that all medical information should be with-held from the public.
After all, we wouldn't want all those hypochondriacs and somatization disorder sufferers to get any ideas, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28718383</id>
	<title>Re:Hurm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247765160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Holy shit, <b>motherfucker</b>!  You finally got a couple of responses, AND a positive moderation... from someone OTHER than me.</p><p>
&nbsp; Signed,<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Your faithful FAIRY godfather of up-mods over the past five months</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Holy shit , motherfucker !
You finally got a couple of responses , AND a positive moderation... from someone OTHER than me .
  Signed ,     Your faithful FAIRY godfather of up-mods over the past five months</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holy shit, motherfucker!
You finally got a couple of responses, AND a positive moderation... from someone OTHER than me.
  Signed,
    Your faithful FAIRY godfather of up-mods over the past five months</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695983</id>
	<title>Since when</title>
	<author>Alarindris</author>
	<datestamp>1247564700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>was this test considered effective for anything?</htmltext>
<tokenext>was this test considered effective for anything ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>was this test considered effective for anything?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697373</id>
	<title>Re:I thought they..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247570940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Someone that is homophobic<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</i> <p>
Heck, they may not even be <b>scared</b> of homosexuals at all...?!?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Someone that is homophobic ... " Heck , they may not even be scared of homosexuals at all... ? ! ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Someone that is homophobic ..." 
Heck, they may not even be scared of homosexuals at all...?!?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696891</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696891</id>
	<title>Re:I thought they..</title>
	<author>gurps\_npc</author>
	<datestamp>1247568780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would agree with your analysis but disagree with your results.
<p>
I.E.  Given that it is just a cold reading technique, that does not mean it is irrelvant, nonsense, junk, etc.
</p><p> It can be EXTREMELY hard to get people to admit stuff.   Someone that is homophobic may be gay, or just an a-hole.
</p><p>Cold Reading type techniques to get the patient to tell you that yes, he is gay can be very valuable.
</p><p>That said, I see zero reason not to publish the old tests and then create some random new ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would agree with your analysis but disagree with your results .
I.E. Given that it is just a cold reading technique , that does not mean it is irrelvant , nonsense , junk , etc .
It can be EXTREMELY hard to get people to admit stuff .
Someone that is homophobic may be gay , or just an a-hole .
Cold Reading type techniques to get the patient to tell you that yes , he is gay can be very valuable .
That said , I see zero reason not to publish the old tests and then create some random new ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would agree with your analysis but disagree with your results.
I.E.  Given that it is just a cold reading technique, that does not mean it is irrelvant, nonsense, junk, etc.
It can be EXTREMELY hard to get people to admit stuff.
Someone that is homophobic may be gay, or just an a-hole.
Cold Reading type techniques to get the patient to tell you that yes, he is gay can be very valuable.
That said, I see zero reason not to publish the old tests and then create some random new ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696849</id>
	<title>Re:I thought they..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247568600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know a psychiatrist, and he told me that the test is no longer in general use precisely because it's in the public domain. He said, with perfect logic, that since there's no way of knowing whether the patient has seen the "right" answers, there's no validity to the results.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know a psychiatrist , and he told me that the test is no longer in general use precisely because it 's in the public domain .
He said , with perfect logic , that since there 's no way of knowing whether the patient has seen the " right " answers , there 's no validity to the results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know a psychiatrist, and he told me that the test is no longer in general use precisely because it's in the public domain.
He said, with perfect logic, that since there's no way of knowing whether the patient has seen the "right" answers, there's no validity to the results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28701171</id>
	<title>Re:My Psyc Professor Already Invalidated Them</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1247652180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In which case you have Asperger's, you cold, unfeeling, emotionally-bereft person you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In which case you have Asperger 's , you cold , unfeeling , emotionally-bereft person you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In which case you have Asperger's, you cold, unfeeling, emotionally-bereft person you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697027</id>
	<title>Re:My answers:</title>
	<author>beef curtains</author>
	<datestamp>1247569320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>7) Two pregnant women.</p></div><p>No way, man!  That's obviously someone giving two thumbs up, Fonzie-style.  Ayyyyyyyy!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>7 ) Two pregnant women.No way , man !
That 's obviously someone giving two thumbs up , Fonzie-style .
Ayyyyyyyy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>7) Two pregnant women.No way, man!
That's obviously someone giving two thumbs up, Fonzie-style.
Ayyyyyyyy!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28708657</id>
	<title>Dead dog in alley this morning</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247654100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>tire tread on burst stomach.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>tire tread on burst stomach .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>tire tread on burst stomach.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28701353</id>
	<title>The test \_IS\_ useless, anyway</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247655180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The whole Rorschach test cannot be rendered useless by the publication, since it has always been a bit of voodoo that's only good for making some people money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole Rorschach test can not be rendered useless by the publication , since it has always been a bit of voodoo that 's only good for making some people money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole Rorschach test cannot be rendered useless by the publication, since it has always been a bit of voodoo that's only good for making some people money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697315</id>
	<title>Re:seems the psychologists are rather focused on s</title>
	<author>MRe\_nl</author>
	<datestamp>1247570640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The only thing the inkblots do reveal is the secret world of the examiner who interprets them. These doctors are probably saying more about themselves than about the subjects." (Anastasi, 1982).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The only thing the inkblots do reveal is the secret world of the examiner who interprets them .
These doctors are probably saying more about themselves than about the subjects .
" ( Anastasi , 1982 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The only thing the inkblots do reveal is the secret world of the examiner who interprets them.
These doctors are probably saying more about themselves than about the subjects.
" (Anastasi, 1982).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696471</id>
	<title>Re:So what???</title>
	<author>jason.sweet</author>
	<datestamp>1247566500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Everyone knows they're all pictures of boobs anyway.</p></div><p>After years of psychological training, I can surmise that you were touching yourself when you wrote that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone knows they 're all pictures of boobs anyway.After years of psychological training , I can surmise that you were touching yourself when you wrote that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone knows they're all pictures of boobs anyway.After years of psychological training, I can surmise that you were touching yourself when you wrote that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28707469</id>
	<title>re: B.S.</title>
	<author>King\_TJ</author>
	<datestamp>1247691480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the Rorschach is simply a tool for the person administering it to "better understand the patient's mental state in a way that doesn't allow them to employ the usual defensive responses" - then there's no reason to believe releasing a specific set of 10 of these ink splotches into the public domain would affect the outcome!</p><p>You're essentially saying it's just a way to show people a bunch of unique but meaningless splotches (vs. actual questions that a reader can perceive the "correct" responses to and tailor his/her answers to suit), so you can study their responses in a more "pure" way.  That means you could accomplish the same things by presenting them with 10 different pieces of string in uniquely wavy or twisted patterns, or with 10 randomly torn chunks from a sheet of construction paper, or ??  The patterns themselves are insignificant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the Rorschach is simply a tool for the person administering it to " better understand the patient 's mental state in a way that does n't allow them to employ the usual defensive responses " - then there 's no reason to believe releasing a specific set of 10 of these ink splotches into the public domain would affect the outcome ! You 're essentially saying it 's just a way to show people a bunch of unique but meaningless splotches ( vs. actual questions that a reader can perceive the " correct " responses to and tailor his/her answers to suit ) , so you can study their responses in a more " pure " way .
That means you could accomplish the same things by presenting them with 10 different pieces of string in uniquely wavy or twisted patterns , or with 10 randomly torn chunks from a sheet of construction paper , or ? ?
The patterns themselves are insignificant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the Rorschach is simply a tool for the person administering it to "better understand the patient's mental state in a way that doesn't allow them to employ the usual defensive responses" - then there's no reason to believe releasing a specific set of 10 of these ink splotches into the public domain would affect the outcome!You're essentially saying it's just a way to show people a bunch of unique but meaningless splotches (vs. actual questions that a reader can perceive the "correct" responses to and tailor his/her answers to suit), so you can study their responses in a more "pure" way.
That means you could accomplish the same things by presenting them with 10 different pieces of string in uniquely wavy or twisted patterns, or with 10 randomly torn chunks from a sheet of construction paper, or ??
The patterns themselves are insignificant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697037</id>
	<title>Find Another Way</title>
	<author>HermMunster</author>
	<datestamp>1247569320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is nothing unethical about releasing them.  I have no trust in a system that old that hasn't been updated.  Besides, just like funding the internet via advertisements; this group should find another way and let Wikipedia be free of their undue influences when opening this type of material to the public domain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is nothing unethical about releasing them .
I have no trust in a system that old that has n't been updated .
Besides , just like funding the internet via advertisements ; this group should find another way and let Wikipedia be free of their undue influences when opening this type of material to the public domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is nothing unethical about releasing them.
I have no trust in a system that old that hasn't been updated.
Besides, just like funding the internet via advertisements; this group should find another way and let Wikipedia be free of their undue influences when opening this type of material to the public domain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28699659</id>
	<title>Re:I thought they..</title>
	<author>Cryacin</author>
	<datestamp>1247588580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, where does a psychiatrist/psychologist turn to when he himself needs metal treatment?</p></div><p>The bottle.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , where does a psychiatrist/psychologist turn to when he himself needs metal treatment ? The bottle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, where does a psychiatrist/psychologist turn to when he himself needs metal treatment?The bottle.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696333</id>
	<title>I've seen it, you can take them down now.</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1247565900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who cares.  I've seen them, so you can take them down now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares .
I 've seen them , so you can take them down now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares.
I've seen them, so you can take them down now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696673</id>
	<title>What is the concern?</title>
	<author>flibbidyfloo</author>
	<datestamp>1247567520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are we concerned that someone with a mental illness will see the blots online and then later will not be cured because this one diagnostic tool isn't useful? You'd run the same risk with anyone who's seen more than one psychiatrist in their life. Perhaps if the psychiatrist simply asks each patient "have you seen these before?". If a modern doctor considers these inkblots their only tool, perhaps they should retire.</p><p>It's a test... I think publishing it online would be the same as publishing any other test online. If it's still generally or widely used, then the ethical implications should be the same as, for example, publishing the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator online (trademark issues aside).</p><p>The MBTI Foundation's website lists what they consider to be ethical use. But this is opinion, and others might say there are no real ethical issues because it's simply a list of questions people can ask themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are we concerned that someone with a mental illness will see the blots online and then later will not be cured because this one diagnostic tool is n't useful ?
You 'd run the same risk with anyone who 's seen more than one psychiatrist in their life .
Perhaps if the psychiatrist simply asks each patient " have you seen these before ? " .
If a modern doctor considers these inkblots their only tool , perhaps they should retire.It 's a test... I think publishing it online would be the same as publishing any other test online .
If it 's still generally or widely used , then the ethical implications should be the same as , for example , publishing the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator online ( trademark issues aside ) .The MBTI Foundation 's website lists what they consider to be ethical use .
But this is opinion , and others might say there are no real ethical issues because it 's simply a list of questions people can ask themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are we concerned that someone with a mental illness will see the blots online and then later will not be cured because this one diagnostic tool isn't useful?
You'd run the same risk with anyone who's seen more than one psychiatrist in their life.
Perhaps if the psychiatrist simply asks each patient "have you seen these before?".
If a modern doctor considers these inkblots their only tool, perhaps they should retire.It's a test... I think publishing it online would be the same as publishing any other test online.
If it's still generally or widely used, then the ethical implications should be the same as, for example, publishing the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator online (trademark issues aside).The MBTI Foundation's website lists what they consider to be ethical use.
But this is opinion, and others might say there are no real ethical issues because it's simply a list of questions people can ask themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696027</id>
	<title>Actually, it is now an act of full-disclosure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247564820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If these images are posted by wikipedia, they are rendered utterly useless.  If one assumes that the chances are high that people will (now) come across these images elsewhere and it that could contribute to misdiagnostics, this is not only fine, it is the responsible thing to do.</p><p>Publishing them on wikipedia would go a long way into forcing people to produce a new batch of test images (preferably a thousand of them or so), which is the responsible thing to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If these images are posted by wikipedia , they are rendered utterly useless .
If one assumes that the chances are high that people will ( now ) come across these images elsewhere and it that could contribute to misdiagnostics , this is not only fine , it is the responsible thing to do.Publishing them on wikipedia would go a long way into forcing people to produce a new batch of test images ( preferably a thousand of them or so ) , which is the responsible thing to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If these images are posted by wikipedia, they are rendered utterly useless.
If one assumes that the chances are high that people will (now) come across these images elsewhere and it that could contribute to misdiagnostics, this is not only fine, it is the responsible thing to do.Publishing them on wikipedia would go a long way into forcing people to produce a new batch of test images (preferably a thousand of them or so), which is the responsible thing to do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696931</id>
	<title>Impressive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247568960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those are just about the 10 nicest paintings of vaginas I've ever seen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those are just about the 10 nicest paintings of vaginas I 've ever seen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those are just about the 10 nicest paintings of vaginas I've ever seen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28698209</id>
	<title>Re:I thought they..</title>
	<author>pz</author>
	<datestamp>1247576460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>With a stethoscope - you can say, 'This sound....it's almost always the result of X'.  With the Rorschach pictures...you can't.</p><p>So, a lot of people don't see the benefit.  And if the benefit is something like, 'Well, the highly trained professions therapist can pick up on the subtle undertones of the patient and gain insight into the blah, blah, blah' it really seems like you could just say, 'We observe the patient and notice that he's crazy'.</p></div><p>I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing that your exposure to medical information is limited to primarily watching ER, General Hospital, Bones, House, and the like on TV.  And that your psychological experience is similarly informed.</p><p>Psychology is not an exact, hard science.  But it is getting there.  I'm the adult child of a clinical psychologist who specializes in testing.  I also, in my line of work, specialize in behavioral tests, although to measure neuroscientific parameters rather than psychological ones.  Testing is difficult.  Having a well-understood tool with a wide body of reference material is important. Intentionally screwing up an important test by publishing the details about that test is unethical.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Beyond that, if the test requires the patient not knowing about the test in advance or understanding the test; that's a good reason to question the validity of the test.</p><p>If someone has a heart condition that can be detected with a stethoscope - knowing how the stethoscope works - does not affect the results.  But, apparently, looking at the pictures, in advance, diminishes their effectiveness.</p><p>I'm not saying a Rorschach test is crap.  I'm just explaining why I think it's probably crap.</p></div><p>Your attitude here demonstrates a deep naivite about psychological testing.  Have you ever seen the famous images that have dual interpretation (eg, <a href="http://www.moillusions.com/2006/05/young-lady-or-old-hag.html" title="moillusions.com">http://www.moillusions.com/2006/05/young-lady-or-old-hag.html</a> [moillusions.com])?  Previous exposure to them makes a HUGE difference in how you answer.  Massively huge.  Unlike measuring, say, heartbeat, measuring mental state, and visual perception in particular, requires knowing whether or not a subject has previous exposure.  It is much easier to assume that there has been zero previous exposure and normalize responses based on that assumption.  Allowing previous exposure complicates the test to the point of uselessness.  The problem is not that the inkblots are inherently flawed (though they may be for other reasons) but that visual perception is highly sensitive to previous experience.</p><p>And, in case you didn't realize, many physiological measurements are highly dependent on the psychological state of the subject.  Your heartrate and blood pressure are generally higher when taken in a doctor's office than when taken at home because you are aware of the measurement being taken by someone in a lab coat in a stressful environment.  Psychology influences physiology all over the place.  That's the whole reason that double-blind testing is the gold standard for medical (even non-psychological) validation: not only does the mental state of the patient matter, the mental state of the doctor administering the test can as well!</p><p>So, while your analogy to a stethoscope might seem good at first, it's not really appropriate.  Humans are not machines.  Biology is messy, and psychology doubly so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With a stethoscope - you can say , 'This sound....it 's almost always the result of X' .
With the Rorschach pictures...you ca n't.So , a lot of people do n't see the benefit .
And if the benefit is something like , 'Well , the highly trained professions therapist can pick up on the subtle undertones of the patient and gain insight into the blah , blah , blah ' it really seems like you could just say , 'We observe the patient and notice that he 's crazy'.I 'm going out on a limb here , but I 'm guessing that your exposure to medical information is limited to primarily watching ER , General Hospital , Bones , House , and the like on TV .
And that your psychological experience is similarly informed.Psychology is not an exact , hard science .
But it is getting there .
I 'm the adult child of a clinical psychologist who specializes in testing .
I also , in my line of work , specialize in behavioral tests , although to measure neuroscientific parameters rather than psychological ones .
Testing is difficult .
Having a well-understood tool with a wide body of reference material is important .
Intentionally screwing up an important test by publishing the details about that test is unethical.Beyond that , if the test requires the patient not knowing about the test in advance or understanding the test ; that 's a good reason to question the validity of the test.If someone has a heart condition that can be detected with a stethoscope - knowing how the stethoscope works - does not affect the results .
But , apparently , looking at the pictures , in advance , diminishes their effectiveness.I 'm not saying a Rorschach test is crap .
I 'm just explaining why I think it 's probably crap.Your attitude here demonstrates a deep naivite about psychological testing .
Have you ever seen the famous images that have dual interpretation ( eg , http : //www.moillusions.com/2006/05/young-lady-or-old-hag.html [ moillusions.com ] ) ?
Previous exposure to them makes a HUGE difference in how you answer .
Massively huge .
Unlike measuring , say , heartbeat , measuring mental state , and visual perception in particular , requires knowing whether or not a subject has previous exposure .
It is much easier to assume that there has been zero previous exposure and normalize responses based on that assumption .
Allowing previous exposure complicates the test to the point of uselessness .
The problem is not that the inkblots are inherently flawed ( though they may be for other reasons ) but that visual perception is highly sensitive to previous experience.And , in case you did n't realize , many physiological measurements are highly dependent on the psychological state of the subject .
Your heartrate and blood pressure are generally higher when taken in a doctor 's office than when taken at home because you are aware of the measurement being taken by someone in a lab coat in a stressful environment .
Psychology influences physiology all over the place .
That 's the whole reason that double-blind testing is the gold standard for medical ( even non-psychological ) validation : not only does the mental state of the patient matter , the mental state of the doctor administering the test can as well ! So , while your analogy to a stethoscope might seem good at first , it 's not really appropriate .
Humans are not machines .
Biology is messy , and psychology doubly so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With a stethoscope - you can say, 'This sound....it's almost always the result of X'.
With the Rorschach pictures...you can't.So, a lot of people don't see the benefit.
And if the benefit is something like, 'Well, the highly trained professions therapist can pick up on the subtle undertones of the patient and gain insight into the blah, blah, blah' it really seems like you could just say, 'We observe the patient and notice that he's crazy'.I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing that your exposure to medical information is limited to primarily watching ER, General Hospital, Bones, House, and the like on TV.
And that your psychological experience is similarly informed.Psychology is not an exact, hard science.
But it is getting there.
I'm the adult child of a clinical psychologist who specializes in testing.
I also, in my line of work, specialize in behavioral tests, although to measure neuroscientific parameters rather than psychological ones.
Testing is difficult.
Having a well-understood tool with a wide body of reference material is important.
Intentionally screwing up an important test by publishing the details about that test is unethical.Beyond that, if the test requires the patient not knowing about the test in advance or understanding the test; that's a good reason to question the validity of the test.If someone has a heart condition that can be detected with a stethoscope - knowing how the stethoscope works - does not affect the results.
But, apparently, looking at the pictures, in advance, diminishes their effectiveness.I'm not saying a Rorschach test is crap.
I'm just explaining why I think it's probably crap.Your attitude here demonstrates a deep naivite about psychological testing.
Have you ever seen the famous images that have dual interpretation (eg, http://www.moillusions.com/2006/05/young-lady-or-old-hag.html [moillusions.com])?
Previous exposure to them makes a HUGE difference in how you answer.
Massively huge.
Unlike measuring, say, heartbeat, measuring mental state, and visual perception in particular, requires knowing whether or not a subject has previous exposure.
It is much easier to assume that there has been zero previous exposure and normalize responses based on that assumption.
Allowing previous exposure complicates the test to the point of uselessness.
The problem is not that the inkblots are inherently flawed (though they may be for other reasons) but that visual perception is highly sensitive to previous experience.And, in case you didn't realize, many physiological measurements are highly dependent on the psychological state of the subject.
Your heartrate and blood pressure are generally higher when taken in a doctor's office than when taken at home because you are aware of the measurement being taken by someone in a lab coat in a stressful environment.
Psychology influences physiology all over the place.
That's the whole reason that double-blind testing is the gold standard for medical (even non-psychological) validation: not only does the mental state of the patient matter, the mental state of the doctor administering the test can as well!So, while your analogy to a stethoscope might seem good at first, it's not really appropriate.
Humans are not machines.
Biology is messy, and psychology doubly so.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28701487</id>
	<title>Mmmm</title>
	<author>ledow</author>
	<datestamp>1247657700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Might be a pain in the arse to the psychologists but surely this *helps* anyone who has seen them.  If you're being asked to take one of these test (I have never been in that position) then it suggest that they believe there is a *possibility* you could be psychotic etc.  Thus, in any sensible (even psychotic) mind, it's only good sense to make the test fail.  I fail to believe that they could ever possibly be a rigourous diagnostic tool anyway and thus this allows the following:</p><p>"Now, we're going to be taking an inkblo..."<br>"Horse, fridge, man driving up a hill,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."<br>"Eh?"<br>"Rorschach, yes?"<br>"Yes."<br>"I just invalidated the results of your test, didn't I?"<br>"Well, yes."<br>"Good... could we have something a little more rigourous and bit less 'Hollywood' please, if you're going to be seriously analysing me?"</p><p>And if the analyst *doesn't* abandon the test at that point?  That's probably a good ground for misconduct because even their own representative groups *say* that the test is useless if you've seen the images before.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Might be a pain in the arse to the psychologists but surely this * helps * anyone who has seen them .
If you 're being asked to take one of these test ( I have never been in that position ) then it suggest that they believe there is a * possibility * you could be psychotic etc .
Thus , in any sensible ( even psychotic ) mind , it 's only good sense to make the test fail .
I fail to believe that they could ever possibly be a rigourous diagnostic tool anyway and thus this allows the following : " Now , we 're going to be taking an inkblo... " " Horse , fridge , man driving up a hill , ... " " Eh ?
" " Rorschach , yes ? " " Yes .
" " I just invalidated the results of your test , did n't I ?
" " Well , yes. " " Good.. .
could we have something a little more rigourous and bit less 'Hollywood ' please , if you 're going to be seriously analysing me ?
" And if the analyst * does n't * abandon the test at that point ?
That 's probably a good ground for misconduct because even their own representative groups * say * that the test is useless if you 've seen the images before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Might be a pain in the arse to the psychologists but surely this *helps* anyone who has seen them.
If you're being asked to take one of these test (I have never been in that position) then it suggest that they believe there is a *possibility* you could be psychotic etc.
Thus, in any sensible (even psychotic) mind, it's only good sense to make the test fail.
I fail to believe that they could ever possibly be a rigourous diagnostic tool anyway and thus this allows the following:"Now, we're going to be taking an inkblo...""Horse, fridge, man driving up a hill, ...""Eh?
""Rorschach, yes?""Yes.
""I just invalidated the results of your test, didn't I?
""Well, yes.""Good...
could we have something a little more rigourous and bit less 'Hollywood' please, if you're going to be seriously analysing me?
"And if the analyst *doesn't* abandon the test at that point?
That's probably a good ground for misconduct because even their own representative groups *say* that the test is useless if you've seen the images before.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697561</id>
	<title>Re:information wants to be free...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247571900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Batman<br>2. Batman kissing Catwoman<br>3. Batman getting out of the Batmobile<br>4. Batman<br>5. Batman<br>6. Batman on Gotham City Bridge<br>7. Mr Freeze<br>8. The Joker<br>9. The Joker<br>10. Dead Joker</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Batman2. Batman kissing Catwoman3 .
Batman getting out of the Batmobile4 .
Batman5. Batman6 .
Batman on Gotham City Bridge7 .
Mr Freeze8 .
The Joker9 .
The Joker10 .
Dead Joker</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Batman2. Batman kissing Catwoman3.
Batman getting out of the Batmobile4.
Batman5. Batman6.
Batman on Gotham City Bridge7.
Mr Freeze8.
The Joker9.
The Joker10.
Dead Joker</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697643</id>
	<title>Re:I thought they..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247572500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stood in firelight, sweltering. Bloodstain on chest like map of violent new continent. Felt cleansed. Felt dark planet turn under my feet and knew what cats know that makes them scream like babies in night. Looked at sky through smoke heavy with human fat and God was not there. The cold, suffocating dark goes on forever and we are alone. Live our lives, lacking anything better to do. Devise reason later. Born from oblivion; bear children, hell-bound as ourselves, go into oblivion. There is nothing else. Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose. This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It's us. Only us. Streets stank of fire. The void breathed hard on my heart, turning its illusions to ice, shattering them. Was reborn then, free to scrawl own design on this morally blank world. Was Rorschach.</p><p>Does that answer your questions, Doctor?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stood in firelight , sweltering .
Bloodstain on chest like map of violent new continent .
Felt cleansed .
Felt dark planet turn under my feet and knew what cats know that makes them scream like babies in night .
Looked at sky through smoke heavy with human fat and God was not there .
The cold , suffocating dark goes on forever and we are alone .
Live our lives , lacking anything better to do .
Devise reason later .
Born from oblivion ; bear children , hell-bound as ourselves , go into oblivion .
There is nothing else .
Existence is random .
Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long .
No meaning save what we choose to impose .
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces .
It is not God who kills the children .
Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs .
It 's us .
Only us .
Streets stank of fire .
The void breathed hard on my heart , turning its illusions to ice , shattering them .
Was reborn then , free to scrawl own design on this morally blank world .
Was Rorschach.Does that answer your questions , Doctor ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stood in firelight, sweltering.
Bloodstain on chest like map of violent new continent.
Felt cleansed.
Felt dark planet turn under my feet and knew what cats know that makes them scream like babies in night.
Looked at sky through smoke heavy with human fat and God was not there.
The cold, suffocating dark goes on forever and we are alone.
Live our lives, lacking anything better to do.
Devise reason later.
Born from oblivion; bear children, hell-bound as ourselves, go into oblivion.
There is nothing else.
Existence is random.
Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long.
No meaning save what we choose to impose.
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces.
It is not God who kills the children.
Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs.
It's us.
Only us.
Streets stank of fire.
The void breathed hard on my heart, turning its illusions to ice, shattering them.
Was reborn then, free to scrawl own design on this morally blank world.
Was Rorschach.Does that answer your questions, Doctor?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696199</id>
	<title>My answers:</title>
	<author>WalksOnDirt</author>
	<datestamp>1247565480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Two bugs on a flower.<br>2) A high five.<br>3) Two butlers tugging on a babies cradle.<br>4) Monster leap-frogging a fence post.<br>5) Bat.<br>6) Sheep's skin.<br>7) Two pregnant women.<br>8) Two chameleons climbing a bird feeder.<br>9) Two sea horses.<br>10) Two men with helmet touching, holding crabs in their far hands.</p><p>Did I win?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Two bugs on a flower.2 ) A high five.3 ) Two butlers tugging on a babies cradle.4 ) Monster leap-frogging a fence post.5 ) Bat.6 ) Sheep 's skin.7 ) Two pregnant women.8 ) Two chameleons climbing a bird feeder.9 ) Two sea horses.10 ) Two men with helmet touching , holding crabs in their far hands.Did I win ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Two bugs on a flower.2) A high five.3) Two butlers tugging on a babies cradle.4) Monster leap-frogging a fence post.5) Bat.6) Sheep's skin.7) Two pregnant women.8) Two chameleons climbing a bird feeder.9) Two sea horses.10) Two men with helmet touching, holding crabs in their far hands.Did I win?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28699769</id>
	<title>anonmyous coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247589540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is important to use the same images so as to know what to expect from the images. Animal face, mask, and demon may be common replies to a certain image. But if someone said blood splatter it would raise a flag that the psychiatrist would then know to ask more questions. Where as if it was a random image the ink blot might actually look like blood splatter from CSI, so their answer could be legit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is important to use the same images so as to know what to expect from the images .
Animal face , mask , and demon may be common replies to a certain image .
But if someone said blood splatter it would raise a flag that the psychiatrist would then know to ask more questions .
Where as if it was a random image the ink blot might actually look like blood splatter from CSI , so their answer could be legit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is important to use the same images so as to know what to expect from the images.
Animal face, mask, and demon may be common replies to a certain image.
But if someone said blood splatter it would raise a flag that the psychiatrist would then know to ask more questions.
Where as if it was a random image the ink blot might actually look like blood splatter from CSI, so their answer could be legit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696729</id>
	<title>Re:My answers:</title>
	<author>Whorhay</author>
	<datestamp>1247567820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That depends. Are the crabs wearing loafers?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That depends .
Are the crabs wearing loafers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That depends.
Are the crabs wearing loafers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696251</id>
	<title>Plain Stupid</title>
	<author>alexborges</author>
	<datestamp>1247565660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the test depends on a particular and exact set of images that are decades old, then its worthless.</p><p>Publish the damned things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the test depends on a particular and exact set of images that are decades old , then its worthless.Publish the damned things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the test depends on a particular and exact set of images that are decades old, then its worthless.Publish the damned things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696117</id>
	<title>Don't they all look like boobs anyway?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247565180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or is that just me?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or is that just me ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or is that just me?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28703447</id>
	<title>Re:My Psyc Professor Already Invalidated Them</title>
	<author>dasunt</author>
	<datestamp>1247672340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But despite what I know, every time I see an ink blot, I think "ink blot, symmetrical about [X,Y] axis." What's that make me? I don't see anything. Just ink on folded paper. I've stared at these things and my answer never changes. because you know, its still an ink blot.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Heh, at least they won't look at you funny.
</p><p>
About a quarter of the images (usually the ones I can't see anything else in) reminds me of roadkill.
</p><p>
I doubt that's going to be a positive test outcome.
</p><p>
Maybe I'm a serial killer in disguise, but I'm pretty sure that my interpretation has something to do with bicycling on the shoulders of busy highways.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But despite what I know , every time I see an ink blot , I think " ink blot , symmetrical about [ X,Y ] axis .
" What 's that make me ?
I do n't see anything .
Just ink on folded paper .
I 've stared at these things and my answer never changes .
because you know , its still an ink blot .
Heh , at least they wo n't look at you funny .
About a quarter of the images ( usually the ones I ca n't see anything else in ) reminds me of roadkill .
I doubt that 's going to be a positive test outcome .
Maybe I 'm a serial killer in disguise , but I 'm pretty sure that my interpretation has something to do with bicycling on the shoulders of busy highways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But despite what I know, every time I see an ink blot, I think "ink blot, symmetrical about [X,Y] axis.
" What's that make me?
I don't see anything.
Just ink on folded paper.
I've stared at these things and my answer never changes.
because you know, its still an ink blot.
Heh, at least they won't look at you funny.
About a quarter of the images (usually the ones I can't see anything else in) reminds me of roadkill.
I doubt that's going to be a positive test outcome.
Maybe I'm a serial killer in disguise, but I'm pretty sure that my interpretation has something to do with bicycling on the shoulders of busy highways.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695887</id>
	<title>I thought they..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247564400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought they made those randomly.  If there are only ten of them, that seems to indicate that there are a few certain "correct" answers, which kind of throws the whole test into doubt now, doesn't it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought they made those randomly .
If there are only ten of them , that seems to indicate that there are a few certain " correct " answers , which kind of throws the whole test into doubt now , does n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought they made those randomly.
If there are only ten of them, that seems to indicate that there are a few certain "correct" answers, which kind of throws the whole test into doubt now, doesn't it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695989</id>
	<title>Haven't too many people already seen them?</title>
	<author>necrodeep</author>
	<datestamp>1247564700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously - they have to have been in about a hundred movies.  And all over the place.</p><p>Maybe it's time for the Psychological research people to join the 21st century and make some new digital inkblots?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously - they have to have been in about a hundred movies .
And all over the place.Maybe it 's time for the Psychological research people to join the 21st century and make some new digital inkblots ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously - they have to have been in about a hundred movies.
And all over the place.Maybe it's time for the Psychological research people to join the 21st century and make some new digital inkblots?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28700463</id>
	<title>Re:Don't they all look like boobs anyway?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1247596680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*taps chin with pen* Interesting...</p><p>Mrs. Freud, cancel my other appointments for today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* taps chin with pen * Interesting...Mrs. Freud , cancel my other appointments for today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*taps chin with pen* Interesting...Mrs. Freud, cancel my other appointments for today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28699289</id>
	<title>Finally their nonsense tests will be exposed</title>
	<author>itsybitsy</author>
	<datestamp>1247585280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you think the ink splotch is?</p><p>A completely bogus test that should be eliminated!</p><p>Good riddance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you think the ink splotch is ? A completely bogus test that should be eliminated ! Good riddance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you think the ink splotch is?A completely bogus test that should be eliminated!Good riddance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28700473</id>
	<title>Re:Wait until the optometrists...</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1247596860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Friend of mine is actually an optometrist. Every time he gets his eyes checked he recites the table verbatim from memory without even looking at it, it earned him some strange, and some angry, looks. Mostly because they usually ask "can you tell me what's written there" instead of the, more accurate, "could you read to me what you can read on the chart there".</p><p>And yes, he can tell you what's written there...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Friend of mine is actually an optometrist .
Every time he gets his eyes checked he recites the table verbatim from memory without even looking at it , it earned him some strange , and some angry , looks .
Mostly because they usually ask " can you tell me what 's written there " instead of the , more accurate , " could you read to me what you can read on the chart there " .And yes , he can tell you what 's written there.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Friend of mine is actually an optometrist.
Every time he gets his eyes checked he recites the table verbatim from memory without even looking at it, it earned him some strange, and some angry, looks.
Mostly because they usually ask "can you tell me what's written there" instead of the, more accurate, "could you read to me what you can read on the chart there".And yes, he can tell you what's written there...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696361</id>
	<title>If this was a government program</title>
	<author>BlowHole666</author>
	<datestamp>1247565960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If this was a government program and posting the details of the program online would render the program useless....we would not be having this debate.<br> <br>
So I say post away.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this was a government program and posting the details of the program online would render the program useless....we would not be having this debate .
So I say post away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this was a government program and posting the details of the program online would render the program useless....we would not be having this debate.
So I say post away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28730255</id>
	<title>Re:Wait until the optometrists...</title>
	<author>dpbsmith</author>
	<datestamp>1247847360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) For the record, all the optometrists I go to, and I thought most professional eyecare specialists, do use computerized systems that generate random charts (or at least many different charts). The only places I see the classic Snellen chart are in places like primary-care offices where they are just doing rough screenings.</p><p>2) Even if you don't look it up in Wikipedia, are you telling me that I'm the only person in the world who has learned that the 20/20 line is "DEFPOTEC" without even trying, just from being told to read it so many times? I mean, it's even pronounceable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) For the record , all the optometrists I go to , and I thought most professional eyecare specialists , do use computerized systems that generate random charts ( or at least many different charts ) .
The only places I see the classic Snellen chart are in places like primary-care offices where they are just doing rough screenings.2 ) Even if you do n't look it up in Wikipedia , are you telling me that I 'm the only person in the world who has learned that the 20/20 line is " DEFPOTEC " without even trying , just from being told to read it so many times ?
I mean , it 's even pronounceable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) For the record, all the optometrists I go to, and I thought most professional eyecare specialists, do use computerized systems that generate random charts (or at least many different charts).
The only places I see the classic Snellen chart are in places like primary-care offices where they are just doing rough screenings.2) Even if you don't look it up in Wikipedia, are you telling me that I'm the only person in the world who has learned that the 20/20 line is "DEFPOTEC" without even trying, just from being told to read it so many times?
I mean, it's even pronounceable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28698835</id>
	<title>Character counts...</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1247581320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally I think that Rorschach should be censored, he was the least likable of the characters in the whole comic and when his resolution came at the end of the story I though it was well done.  But by all means censor the foul mouthed weenie!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I think that Rorschach should be censored , he was the least likable of the characters in the whole comic and when his resolution came at the end of the story I though it was well done .
But by all means censor the foul mouthed weenie !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I think that Rorschach should be censored, he was the least likable of the characters in the whole comic and when his resolution came at the end of the story I though it was well done.
But by all means censor the foul mouthed weenie!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697441</id>
	<title>Re:I thought they..</title>
	<author>RobDude</author>
	<datestamp>1247571300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think it's an issue of whether or not the tool provides a full-blown diagnosis.  I think it has to do with what the tool measures.</p><p>A stethoscope doesn't provide a diagnosis...it just allows the user to hear things that normally can't be heard.  It's not subjective at all.  The effectiveness of the stethoscope can easily be measured and confirmed.  The sounds the stethoscope pick up (typically heart beats/breathing - I'm guessing?) have been *proven* as a useful diagnostic tool.</p><p>That's to say, it is possible to hear an abnormal heart beat.  Or to hear congestion in the lungs.  We (as a scientific community) understand how sound works and we know that some things make sounds; and if we hear a certain type of sound, we know it must have a certain of cause.  If the cause of the sound is in your lungs and it's a sound that shouldn't be, we know it's a problem.</p><p>The problem most people have with the Rorschach test or 'tool', however you want to word it - is that it doesn't measure anything.  It's some pictures.  They don't do ANYTHING.</p><p>You can show them to someone and then interpret their answers and use that to help show you the state of mind of the person answering.  But, we (as a scientific community) still don't understand the inner workings of the mind.  Someone's answers are highly open for interpretation.  Even if we can agree that a certain type of answer or behavior while answering is 'abnormal', we don't know what causes it.</p><p>With a stethoscope - you can say, 'This sound....it's almost always the result of X'.  With the Rorschach pictures...you can't.</p><p>So, a lot of people don't see the benefit.  And if the benefit is something like, 'Well, the highly trained professions therapist can pick up on the subtle undertones of the patient and gain insight into the blah, blah, blah' it really seems like you could just say, 'We observe the patient and notice that he's crazy'.</p><p>Beyond that, if the test requires the patient not knowing about the test in advance or understanding the test; that's a good reason to question the validity of the test.</p><p>If someone has a heart condition that can be detected with a stethoscope - knowing how the stethoscope works - does not affect the results.  But, apparently, looking at the pictures, in advance, diminishes their effectiveness.</p><p>I'm not saying a Rorschach test is crap.  I'm just explaining why I think it's probably crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think it 's an issue of whether or not the tool provides a full-blown diagnosis .
I think it has to do with what the tool measures.A stethoscope does n't provide a diagnosis...it just allows the user to hear things that normally ca n't be heard .
It 's not subjective at all .
The effectiveness of the stethoscope can easily be measured and confirmed .
The sounds the stethoscope pick up ( typically heart beats/breathing - I 'm guessing ?
) have been * proven * as a useful diagnostic tool.That 's to say , it is possible to hear an abnormal heart beat .
Or to hear congestion in the lungs .
We ( as a scientific community ) understand how sound works and we know that some things make sounds ; and if we hear a certain type of sound , we know it must have a certain of cause .
If the cause of the sound is in your lungs and it 's a sound that should n't be , we know it 's a problem.The problem most people have with the Rorschach test or 'tool ' , however you want to word it - is that it does n't measure anything .
It 's some pictures .
They do n't do ANYTHING.You can show them to someone and then interpret their answers and use that to help show you the state of mind of the person answering .
But , we ( as a scientific community ) still do n't understand the inner workings of the mind .
Someone 's answers are highly open for interpretation .
Even if we can agree that a certain type of answer or behavior while answering is 'abnormal ' , we do n't know what causes it.With a stethoscope - you can say , 'This sound....it 's almost always the result of X' .
With the Rorschach pictures...you ca n't.So , a lot of people do n't see the benefit .
And if the benefit is something like , 'Well , the highly trained professions therapist can pick up on the subtle undertones of the patient and gain insight into the blah , blah , blah ' it really seems like you could just say , 'We observe the patient and notice that he 's crazy'.Beyond that , if the test requires the patient not knowing about the test in advance or understanding the test ; that 's a good reason to question the validity of the test.If someone has a heart condition that can be detected with a stethoscope - knowing how the stethoscope works - does not affect the results .
But , apparently , looking at the pictures , in advance , diminishes their effectiveness.I 'm not saying a Rorschach test is crap .
I 'm just explaining why I think it 's probably crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think it's an issue of whether or not the tool provides a full-blown diagnosis.
I think it has to do with what the tool measures.A stethoscope doesn't provide a diagnosis...it just allows the user to hear things that normally can't be heard.
It's not subjective at all.
The effectiveness of the stethoscope can easily be measured and confirmed.
The sounds the stethoscope pick up (typically heart beats/breathing - I'm guessing?
) have been *proven* as a useful diagnostic tool.That's to say, it is possible to hear an abnormal heart beat.
Or to hear congestion in the lungs.
We (as a scientific community) understand how sound works and we know that some things make sounds; and if we hear a certain type of sound, we know it must have a certain of cause.
If the cause of the sound is in your lungs and it's a sound that shouldn't be, we know it's a problem.The problem most people have with the Rorschach test or 'tool', however you want to word it - is that it doesn't measure anything.
It's some pictures.
They don't do ANYTHING.You can show them to someone and then interpret their answers and use that to help show you the state of mind of the person answering.
But, we (as a scientific community) still don't understand the inner workings of the mind.
Someone's answers are highly open for interpretation.
Even if we can agree that a certain type of answer or behavior while answering is 'abnormal', we don't know what causes it.With a stethoscope - you can say, 'This sound....it's almost always the result of X'.
With the Rorschach pictures...you can't.So, a lot of people don't see the benefit.
And if the benefit is something like, 'Well, the highly trained professions therapist can pick up on the subtle undertones of the patient and gain insight into the blah, blah, blah' it really seems like you could just say, 'We observe the patient and notice that he's crazy'.Beyond that, if the test requires the patient not knowing about the test in advance or understanding the test; that's a good reason to question the validity of the test.If someone has a heart condition that can be detected with a stethoscope - knowing how the stethoscope works - does not affect the results.
But, apparently, looking at the pictures, in advance, diminishes their effectiveness.I'm not saying a Rorschach test is crap.
I'm just explaining why I think it's probably crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28702165</id>
	<title>Re:Rorschach has long been discredited.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247665440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No kidding...</p><p>The test is designed for the sole purpose of determining preoccupation with sex and reproductive motivation, and it is no coincidence that this test was authored and became popular in Germany.</p><p>In woman, sexual preoccupation indicates an increased desire to bear children. In men, increased sexual drive correlates well with physical aggression and hence military value. Both of these indicators were valuable to the Third Reich and its desire to cleanse the human genome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No kidding...The test is designed for the sole purpose of determining preoccupation with sex and reproductive motivation , and it is no coincidence that this test was authored and became popular in Germany.In woman , sexual preoccupation indicates an increased desire to bear children .
In men , increased sexual drive correlates well with physical aggression and hence military value .
Both of these indicators were valuable to the Third Reich and its desire to cleanse the human genome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No kidding...The test is designed for the sole purpose of determining preoccupation with sex and reproductive motivation, and it is no coincidence that this test was authored and became popular in Germany.In woman, sexual preoccupation indicates an increased desire to bear children.
In men, increased sexual drive correlates well with physical aggression and hence military value.
Both of these indicators were valuable to the Third Reich and its desire to cleanse the human genome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28700307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28707337</id>
	<title>Re:Wikipedia is full of abusive admins</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1247690880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A bunch of self important little jerks with their pathetic discussions sprinkled with WP:this and WP:that as if it's holy writ and the fundamental laws of nature rolled into one.  They can all WP:fuck off.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A bunch of self important little jerks with their pathetic discussions sprinkled with WP : this and WP : that as if it 's holy writ and the fundamental laws of nature rolled into one .
They can all WP : fuck off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A bunch of self important little jerks with their pathetic discussions sprinkled with WP:this and WP:that as if it's holy writ and the fundamental laws of nature rolled into one.
They can all WP:fuck off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696235</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696079</id>
	<title>Subject</title>
	<author>Legion303</author>
	<datestamp>1247565000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want to know all about the ink blots, enter any public library and look at the psychology section (or get an inter-library loan if they don't have the specific books you need). If wikipedia wants to argue itself into irrelevance, why give a shit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to know all about the ink blots , enter any public library and look at the psychology section ( or get an inter-library loan if they do n't have the specific books you need ) .
If wikipedia wants to argue itself into irrelevance , why give a shit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to know all about the ink blots, enter any public library and look at the psychology section (or get an inter-library loan if they don't have the specific books you need).
If wikipedia wants to argue itself into irrelevance, why give a shit?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28700781</id>
	<title>Magic</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1247688240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However, some editors have cited the American Psychological Association's statement that exposure of the images to the public is an unethical act, since prior exposure to the images could render them ineffective as a psychological test. Is the censorship of material appropriate, when the public exposure to that material may render it useless?</p></div><p>It seems to me that this is a fight over superstitions; the strength of the Rorschach test is not that here we have a set of carefully constructed, magical devices such as mankind has never seen before. The basic idea, if I'm not mistaken, is to get the subject to look at them and talk about whatever thoughts are inspired by them. The precise shapes are not important, and you can use any other device in the same way, eg. Tarot cards.</p><p>This is incidentally the way Tarot cards make it possible to "see the future" - everybody can predict things, it is just a matter of remembering and thinking about all the facts; by looking at a number of Tarot cards and trying to relate the symbols to your circumstances, you force yourself to think out of the box, thus bringing more of the things you already know into your conscious awareness, which gives you a better basis from which to predict things. Nothing magical about it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , some editors have cited the American Psychological Association 's statement that exposure of the images to the public is an unethical act , since prior exposure to the images could render them ineffective as a psychological test .
Is the censorship of material appropriate , when the public exposure to that material may render it useless ? It seems to me that this is a fight over superstitions ; the strength of the Rorschach test is not that here we have a set of carefully constructed , magical devices such as mankind has never seen before .
The basic idea , if I 'm not mistaken , is to get the subject to look at them and talk about whatever thoughts are inspired by them .
The precise shapes are not important , and you can use any other device in the same way , eg .
Tarot cards.This is incidentally the way Tarot cards make it possible to " see the future " - everybody can predict things , it is just a matter of remembering and thinking about all the facts ; by looking at a number of Tarot cards and trying to relate the symbols to your circumstances , you force yourself to think out of the box , thus bringing more of the things you already know into your conscious awareness , which gives you a better basis from which to predict things .
Nothing magical about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, some editors have cited the American Psychological Association's statement that exposure of the images to the public is an unethical act, since prior exposure to the images could render them ineffective as a psychological test.
Is the censorship of material appropriate, when the public exposure to that material may render it useless?It seems to me that this is a fight over superstitions; the strength of the Rorschach test is not that here we have a set of carefully constructed, magical devices such as mankind has never seen before.
The basic idea, if I'm not mistaken, is to get the subject to look at them and talk about whatever thoughts are inspired by them.
The precise shapes are not important, and you can use any other device in the same way, eg.
Tarot cards.This is incidentally the way Tarot cards make it possible to "see the future" - everybody can predict things, it is just a matter of remembering and thinking about all the facts; by looking at a number of Tarot cards and trying to relate the symbols to your circumstances, you force yourself to think out of the box, thus bringing more of the things you already know into your conscious awareness, which gives you a better basis from which to predict things.
Nothing magical about it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28699915</id>
	<title>Just because everyone else is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247590920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. Two badger-mole-dolphins dancing with an evil crocodilian sorceress.
2. Two ladies kissing
3. Two guys hammering a bell.
4. A bat hanging upside-down, possibly with some weird beast's head.
5. A bat-butterfly
6. The Titanic.
7. A vagina
8. Badgermoles climbing up a chandelier.
9. Two ladies dancing
10. Scene from a battle under the sea with two sides facing off over a trench. The mutant lobsters are on the top, with two presumably dead sea horses in the trench.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Two badger-mole-dolphins dancing with an evil crocodilian sorceress .
2. Two ladies kissing 3 .
Two guys hammering a bell .
4. A bat hanging upside-down , possibly with some weird beast 's head .
5. A bat-butterfly 6 .
The Titanic .
7. A vagina 8 .
Badgermoles climbing up a chandelier .
9. Two ladies dancing 10 .
Scene from a battle under the sea with two sides facing off over a trench .
The mutant lobsters are on the top , with two presumably dead sea horses in the trench .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Two badger-mole-dolphins dancing with an evil crocodilian sorceress.
2. Two ladies kissing
3.
Two guys hammering a bell.
4. A bat hanging upside-down, possibly with some weird beast's head.
5. A bat-butterfly
6.
The Titanic.
7. A vagina
8.
Badgermoles climbing up a chandelier.
9. Two ladies dancing
10.
Scene from a battle under the sea with two sides facing off over a trench.
The mutant lobsters are on the top, with two presumably dead sea horses in the trench.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28701791</id>
	<title>If prior exposure is harmful to testing...</title>
	<author>Bones3D\_mac</author>
	<datestamp>1247661900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... why don't they just abandon the static tests for ones that are randomly generated on the fly? They could just store a set of seed values for the generator and assign observations to them in a database.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... why do n't they just abandon the static tests for ones that are randomly generated on the fly ?
They could just store a set of seed values for the generator and assign observations to them in a database .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... why don't they just abandon the static tests for ones that are randomly generated on the fly?
They could just store a set of seed values for the generator and assign observations to them in a database.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696089</id>
	<title>Children</title>
	<author>shadowbearer</author>
	<datestamp>1247565000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>squabbling over which marble is prettier.</p><p>
&nbsp; Grow the fuck up. There are more pressing problems facing us.</p><p>
&nbsp; And no, I didn't RTFA.</p><p>
&nbsp; "Look at it this way... in a hundred years, who's gonna care?" - waitress from Terminator.</p><p>SB</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>squabbling over which marble is prettier .
  Grow the fuck up .
There are more pressing problems facing us .
  And no , I did n't RTFA .
  " Look at it this way... in a hundred years , who 's gon na care ?
" - waitress from Terminator.SB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>squabbling over which marble is prettier.
  Grow the fuck up.
There are more pressing problems facing us.
  And no, I didn't RTFA.
  "Look at it this way... in a hundred years, who's gonna care?
" - waitress from Terminator.SB</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28700791</id>
	<title>Typical of those cultists</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247688480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rorschach Blots, Xenu, the E-meter, Narconon...<br>Obviously Jesus Freud Lafayette has continuing copyright on all this material since he resurrected three days after his initial death, as stipulated under the 'bounceback' paragraph 148.3 of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act!</p><p>Now, for the real issue: when will Psycho-Analysts get tax exemptions like all the other snake handlers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rorschach Blots , Xenu , the E-meter , Narconon...Obviously Jesus Freud Lafayette has continuing copyright on all this material since he resurrected three days after his initial death , as stipulated under the 'bounceback ' paragraph 148.3 of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act ! Now , for the real issue : when will Psycho-Analysts get tax exemptions like all the other snake handlers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rorschach Blots, Xenu, the E-meter, Narconon...Obviously Jesus Freud Lafayette has continuing copyright on all this material since he resurrected three days after his initial death, as stipulated under the 'bounceback' paragraph 148.3 of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act!Now, for the real issue: when will Psycho-Analysts get tax exemptions like all the other snake handlers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697625</id>
	<title>warning</title>
	<author>uepuejq</author>
	<datestamp>1247572380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>looking at these images may reduce the quality of their practical applications in your life.  proceed at your own risk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>looking at these images may reduce the quality of their practical applications in your life .
proceed at your own risk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>looking at these images may reduce the quality of their practical applications in your life.
proceed at your own risk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697611</id>
	<title>Wow. check that fools out.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1247572320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently they think the public is SO stupid that, the ones who are intent on dodging the test are uncapable of finding access to the test images even now.</p><p>there should be an elitism &amp; down to earthness test for scientists to prevent such foolery of mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently they think the public is SO stupid that , the ones who are intent on dodging the test are uncapable of finding access to the test images even now.there should be an elitism &amp; down to earthness test for scientists to prevent such foolery of mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently they think the public is SO stupid that, the ones who are intent on dodging the test are uncapable of finding access to the test images even now.there should be an elitism &amp; down to earthness test for scientists to prevent such foolery of mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696779</id>
	<title>Pravin Lal is correct again...</title>
	<author>laron</author>
	<datestamp>1247568240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See quote in signature.<br>Seriously, even without having searched for the blots previously, you just can't grow up without seeing a few of them in movies and such. So, if the test requires secrecy to work, it has failed a long time ago.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>See quote in signature.Seriously , even without having searched for the blots previously , you just ca n't grow up without seeing a few of them in movies and such .
So , if the test requires secrecy to work , it has failed a long time ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See quote in signature.Seriously, even without having searched for the blots previously, you just can't grow up without seeing a few of them in movies and such.
So, if the test requires secrecy to work, it has failed a long time ago.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696003</id>
	<title>"Big Secrets" by William Poundstone</title>
	<author>mattack2</author>
	<datestamp>1247564760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least some of them showed up in "Big Secrets" by William Poundstone over 20 years ago.  (Great book IMHO, though the sequels go down in quality as he scrounges for more secrets.)  He also discusses what types of things are 'bad' to see in them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least some of them showed up in " Big Secrets " by William Poundstone over 20 years ago .
( Great book IMHO , though the sequels go down in quality as he scrounges for more secrets .
) He also discusses what types of things are 'bad ' to see in them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least some of them showed up in "Big Secrets" by William Poundstone over 20 years ago.
(Great book IMHO, though the sequels go down in quality as he scrounges for more secrets.
)  He also discusses what types of things are 'bad' to see in them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697649</id>
	<title>Shoes</title>
	<author>maharb</author>
	<datestamp>1247572500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>#4 - 6 all look like shoes/boots to me.  What does that mean?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext># 4 - 6 all look like shoes/boots to me .
What does that mean ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>#4 - 6 all look like shoes/boots to me.
What does that mean?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28700041</id>
	<title>Of historical interest. Not a big secret.</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1247592000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The only reason it's still interesting is because there's historical data.  Giving the same test to groups over many decades is interesting in that it helps to spot long-term trends.
The MMPI, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota\_Multiphasic\_Personality\_Inventory" title="wikipedia.org">Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory</a> [wikipedia.org], is like that.  The definition of "normal" in the 1930s is rather different from the results today, and it's useful to see the trends.
</p><p>
Here's a classic "big secret:" <a href="http://www.walterblaney.com/illusions/routinell.html" title="walterblaney.com">Blaney's Ladder Levitation.</a> [walterblaney.com] It was first <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhuHAiBxZGQ" title="youtube.com">performed on TV on The Tonight show in 1973.</a> [youtube.com] It's still considered a "big secret" by professional magicians, but if you watch the video closely, you should be able to figure it out.  Few illusions  survive frame-by-frame examination.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only reason it 's still interesting is because there 's historical data .
Giving the same test to groups over many decades is interesting in that it helps to spot long-term trends .
The MMPI , the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory [ wikipedia.org ] , is like that .
The definition of " normal " in the 1930s is rather different from the results today , and it 's useful to see the trends .
Here 's a classic " big secret : " Blaney 's Ladder Levitation .
[ walterblaney.com ] It was first performed on TV on The Tonight show in 1973 .
[ youtube.com ] It 's still considered a " big secret " by professional magicians , but if you watch the video closely , you should be able to figure it out .
Few illusions survive frame-by-frame examination .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The only reason it's still interesting is because there's historical data.
Giving the same test to groups over many decades is interesting in that it helps to spot long-term trends.
The MMPI, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory [wikipedia.org], is like that.
The definition of "normal" in the 1930s is rather different from the results today, and it's useful to see the trends.
Here's a classic "big secret:" Blaney's Ladder Levitation.
[walterblaney.com] It was first performed on TV on The Tonight show in 1973.
[youtube.com] It's still considered a "big secret" by professional magicians, but if you watch the video closely, you should be able to figure it out.
Few illusions  survive frame-by-frame examination.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696753</id>
	<title>Re:My Psyc Professor Already Invalidated Them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247568000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>every time I see an ink blot, I think "ink blot, symmetrical about [X,Y] axis." What's that make me? I don't see anything. Just ink on folded paper. I've stared at these things and my answer never changes. because you know, its still an ink blot.</p></div></blockquote><p> <a href="http://deltabravo.net/custody/rorschach.php" title="deltabravo.net" rel="nofollow"> <i>"claiming to see nothing at all will definitely be held against you in terms of Rorschach scoring, and may result in a finding of "retardation" or a possible mental disorder"</i> </a> [deltabravo.net]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>every time I see an ink blot , I think " ink blot , symmetrical about [ X,Y ] axis .
" What 's that make me ?
I do n't see anything .
Just ink on folded paper .
I 've stared at these things and my answer never changes .
because you know , its still an ink blot .
" claiming to see nothing at all will definitely be held against you in terms of Rorschach scoring , and may result in a finding of " retardation " or a possible mental disorder " [ deltabravo.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>every time I see an ink blot, I think "ink blot, symmetrical about [X,Y] axis.
" What's that make me?
I don't see anything.
Just ink on folded paper.
I've stared at these things and my answer never changes.
because you know, its still an ink blot.
"claiming to see nothing at all will definitely be held against you in terms of Rorschach scoring, and may result in a finding of "retardation" or a possible mental disorder"  [deltabravo.net]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697791</id>
	<title>Forget art...</title>
	<author>bennomatic</author>
	<datestamp>1247573580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm tired of evaluating art.  I want to look at poetry.  Anyone know where I can find works by Raymond Kertecz?  He's my favorite poet!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm tired of evaluating art .
I want to look at poetry .
Anyone know where I can find works by Raymond Kertecz ?
He 's my favorite poet !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm tired of evaluating art.
I want to look at poetry.
Anyone know where I can find works by Raymond Kertecz?
He's my favorite poet!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696243</id>
	<title>Hurm</title>
	<author>JockTroll</author>
	<datestamp>1247565660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>July the 14th. Nerd carcass in the toilet, head stuck in the bowl. This place is afraid of me. I shit on its true face. The corridors are infested with loserboys and the putrid smell of their feces-encrusted pants soil the very air as I twist their arms out of their sockets. The accumulated filth of all their fapping to kiddie scat porn will foam at their waist and all the stupid geeks and nerds will scream "save us!"...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... And I'll whisper "fuck you, loserboys." And then I'll beat them up and shit on their faces.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>July the 14th .
Nerd carcass in the toilet , head stuck in the bowl .
This place is afraid of me .
I shit on its true face .
The corridors are infested with loserboys and the putrid smell of their feces-encrusted pants soil the very air as I twist their arms out of their sockets .
The accumulated filth of all their fapping to kiddie scat porn will foam at their waist and all the stupid geeks and nerds will scream " save us ! " .. .
... And I 'll whisper " fuck you , loserboys .
" And then I 'll beat them up and shit on their faces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>July the 14th.
Nerd carcass in the toilet, head stuck in the bowl.
This place is afraid of me.
I shit on its true face.
The corridors are infested with loserboys and the putrid smell of their feces-encrusted pants soil the very air as I twist their arms out of their sockets.
The accumulated filth of all their fapping to kiddie scat porn will foam at their waist and all the stupid geeks and nerds will scream "save us!"...
... And I'll whisper "fuck you, loserboys.
" And then I'll beat them up and shit on their faces.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28699721</id>
	<title>What's the big deal?</title>
	<author>TiberSeptm</author>
	<datestamp>1247589120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh no, now they'll be forced to used the much more refined, albeit more involved for the psychologist, Holtzman test instead.  It's terrible that they'll have to use the newer test that was designed based on experience with the Rorschach test and addresses nearly all the controversies and difficulties surrounding it.  The best excuse for sticking with the older and deeply flawed Rorschach test is lazyness.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>A different approach to Inkblot testing was undertaken by Wayne Holtzman and his colleagues who developed the Holtzman Inkblot technique (HIT) to overcome limitations in the Rorschach. Unlike the Rorschach, which uses only 10 inkblots, the HIT is a more extensive set of 45 inkblots in the test series plus two practice blots. The inkblots were drawn from a pool of several thousand. While retaining the sensitivity of the Rorschach blots, the HIT is scored for 22 characteristics that can be objectively defined, reliably scored, and efficiently handled by statistical methods.</p><p>It is important to remember that the Inkblot test is only one of many tests that psychologists use to help them learn about an individual's personality. </p></div><p>
<a href="http://www.psy.utexas.edu/psy/inkblot-perception.html" title="utexas.edu">http://www.psy.utexas.edu/psy/inkblot-perception.html</a> [utexas.edu]</p><p>It is important to note that even the sources describing this newer and more extensive test acknowledge it is merely one in a large array of tools.  Taking away the older and outdated version of it does not diminish the ability of a psychologist to diagnose a patient.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh no , now they 'll be forced to used the much more refined , albeit more involved for the psychologist , Holtzman test instead .
It 's terrible that they 'll have to use the newer test that was designed based on experience with the Rorschach test and addresses nearly all the controversies and difficulties surrounding it .
The best excuse for sticking with the older and deeply flawed Rorschach test is lazyness.A different approach to Inkblot testing was undertaken by Wayne Holtzman and his colleagues who developed the Holtzman Inkblot technique ( HIT ) to overcome limitations in the Rorschach .
Unlike the Rorschach , which uses only 10 inkblots , the HIT is a more extensive set of 45 inkblots in the test series plus two practice blots .
The inkblots were drawn from a pool of several thousand .
While retaining the sensitivity of the Rorschach blots , the HIT is scored for 22 characteristics that can be objectively defined , reliably scored , and efficiently handled by statistical methods.It is important to remember that the Inkblot test is only one of many tests that psychologists use to help them learn about an individual 's personality .
http : //www.psy.utexas.edu/psy/inkblot-perception.html [ utexas.edu ] It is important to note that even the sources describing this newer and more extensive test acknowledge it is merely one in a large array of tools .
Taking away the older and outdated version of it does not diminish the ability of a psychologist to diagnose a patient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh no, now they'll be forced to used the much more refined, albeit more involved for the psychologist, Holtzman test instead.
It's terrible that they'll have to use the newer test that was designed based on experience with the Rorschach test and addresses nearly all the controversies and difficulties surrounding it.
The best excuse for sticking with the older and deeply flawed Rorschach test is lazyness.A different approach to Inkblot testing was undertaken by Wayne Holtzman and his colleagues who developed the Holtzman Inkblot technique (HIT) to overcome limitations in the Rorschach.
Unlike the Rorschach, which uses only 10 inkblots, the HIT is a more extensive set of 45 inkblots in the test series plus two practice blots.
The inkblots were drawn from a pool of several thousand.
While retaining the sensitivity of the Rorschach blots, the HIT is scored for 22 characteristics that can be objectively defined, reliably scored, and efficiently handled by statistical methods.It is important to remember that the Inkblot test is only one of many tests that psychologists use to help them learn about an individual's personality.
http://www.psy.utexas.edu/psy/inkblot-perception.html [utexas.edu]It is important to note that even the sources describing this newer and more extensive test acknowledge it is merely one in a large array of tools.
Taking away the older and outdated version of it does not diminish the ability of a psychologist to diagnose a patient.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28698449</id>
	<title>Re:Suggested reading</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1247578500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It seems that the APA is the latest group that needs to do some reading on why security through obscurity just doesn't work.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>This is different, becuase it's for the potential patient's benefit not to see these. Security through obscurity would be about protecting something of the APA. If a patient wants to screw up the usefulness of a test for himself in the future, so be it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems that the APA is the latest group that needs to do some reading on why security through obscurity just does n't work .
This is different , becuase it 's for the potential patient 's benefit not to see these .
Security through obscurity would be about protecting something of the APA .
If a patient wants to screw up the usefulness of a test for himself in the future , so be it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems that the APA is the latest group that needs to do some reading on why security through obscurity just doesn't work.
This is different, becuase it's for the potential patient's benefit not to see these.
Security through obscurity would be about protecting something of the APA.
If a patient wants to screw up the usefulness of a test for himself in the future, so be it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696037</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696525</id>
	<title>Re:So what???</title>
	<author>UncleTogie</author>
	<datestamp>1247566860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Everyone knows they're all pictures of boobs anyway.</p></div><p>...with the exception of number 7. That one's YOU.... with boobs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone knows they 're all pictures of boobs anyway....with the exception of number 7 .
That one 's YOU.... with boobs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone knows they're all pictures of boobs anyway....with the exception of number 7.
That one's YOU.... with boobs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696347</id>
	<title>My Psyc Professor Already Invalidated Them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247565960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in college, my psyc prof spent some time going over those "personality" screenings and directly told us how to pass. He in effect, gave us the answer key (for those of us taking notes) on how to present ourselves via test results. His statements about how the scoring is done already invalidated the test. He also covered multi-colored ink blots and told us how to handle those too.</p><p>But despite what I know, every time I see an ink blot, I think "ink blot, symmetrical about [X,Y] axis."  What's that make me? I don't see anything. Just ink on folded paper. I've stared at these things and my answer never changes. because you know, its still an ink blot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in college , my psyc prof spent some time going over those " personality " screenings and directly told us how to pass .
He in effect , gave us the answer key ( for those of us taking notes ) on how to present ourselves via test results .
His statements about how the scoring is done already invalidated the test .
He also covered multi-colored ink blots and told us how to handle those too.But despite what I know , every time I see an ink blot , I think " ink blot , symmetrical about [ X,Y ] axis .
" What 's that make me ?
I do n't see anything .
Just ink on folded paper .
I 've stared at these things and my answer never changes .
because you know , its still an ink blot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in college, my psyc prof spent some time going over those "personality" screenings and directly told us how to pass.
He in effect, gave us the answer key (for those of us taking notes) on how to present ourselves via test results.
His statements about how the scoring is done already invalidated the test.
He also covered multi-colored ink blots and told us how to handle those too.But despite what I know, every time I see an ink blot, I think "ink blot, symmetrical about [X,Y] axis.
"  What's that make me?
I don't see anything.
Just ink on folded paper.
I've stared at these things and my answer never changes.
because you know, its still an ink blot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697721</id>
	<title>THe assumption is...</title>
	<author>strangeattraction</author>
	<datestamp>1247573040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The assumption here is there is actually something useful being destroyed. Just the fact that there is a way to correctly answer the test makes it suspect for usefulness because the tester will never know if the testee is faking. Just think how many androids would remain loose if they could fake the test.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The assumption here is there is actually something useful being destroyed .
Just the fact that there is a way to correctly answer the test makes it suspect for usefulness because the tester will never know if the testee is faking .
Just think how many androids would remain loose if they could fake the test .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The assumption here is there is actually something useful being destroyed.
Just the fact that there is a way to correctly answer the test makes it suspect for usefulness because the tester will never know if the testee is faking.
Just think how many androids would remain loose if they could fake the test.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696037</id>
	<title>Suggested reading</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247564820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems that the APA is the latest group that needs to do some reading on why <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security\_through\_obscurity" title="wikipedia.org">security through obscurity</a> [wikipedia.org] just doesn't work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems that the APA is the latest group that needs to do some reading on why security through obscurity [ wikipedia.org ] just does n't work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems that the APA is the latest group that needs to do some reading on why security through obscurity [wikipedia.org] just doesn't work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696535</id>
	<title>They'll include the pics</title>
	<author>brianary</author>
	<datestamp>1247566860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Wikipedia intelligentsia won't even carry spoiler alerts, because that could lead to "censorship", and is somehow "hard to define" (seems like the word "reveal" would be the main tip to me, in the same way as "like" or "as" denotes similes).

But then again, they were able to censor the journalist kidnapping stuff, since the ends justify the means. So, who knows?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Wikipedia intelligentsia wo n't even carry spoiler alerts , because that could lead to " censorship " , and is somehow " hard to define " ( seems like the word " reveal " would be the main tip to me , in the same way as " like " or " as " denotes similes ) .
But then again , they were able to censor the journalist kidnapping stuff , since the ends justify the means .
So , who knows ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Wikipedia intelligentsia won't even carry spoiler alerts, because that could lead to "censorship", and is somehow "hard to define" (seems like the word "reveal" would be the main tip to me, in the same way as "like" or "as" denotes similes).
But then again, they were able to censor the journalist kidnapping stuff, since the ends justify the means.
So, who knows?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696491</id>
	<title>Plate 1</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1247566620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey! Who put CowboyNeal's photo in there?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey !
Who put CowboyNeal 's photo in there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey!
Who put CowboyNeal's photo in there?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28698883</id>
	<title>Test? Test!!!??!</title>
	<author>TiggertheMad</author>
	<datestamp>1247581680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>'m not saying a Rorschach test is crap. I'm just explaining why I think it's probably crap.</i>
<br> <br>
No you are right, it IS crap. If it is simply a tool to help divine the subject's mood or mindset, why use ink blots at all? Why not just show them a mirror and ask them to describe themselves? Or a front page of a news paper? Or talk about the weather? Any number of 'tools' could allow a quack, er psychiatrist a way of opening a dialogue with a subject that is tangential to the topic of mental health. If the whole point of the 'test' is to communicate with them in an indirect fashion and observe their reactions, there are many way of doing it that don't involve what is a widely know trope. One might actually say that BECAUSE the 'test' is such a widely know cliche, you won't get a unguarded response from a subject and is therefore a worthless tool.
<br> <br>
I have met a few psychiatrists over they years. I wouldn't trust one further than I could throw em.
 <br> <br>
A psychiatrist is sitting in the park, eating lunch. A duck lands next to his bench, and waits for a handout. After a few minutes of being ignored, he quacks loudly at the psychiatrist . The psychiatrist says, "yeah, but the money is good."</htmltext>
<tokenext>'m not saying a Rorschach test is crap .
I 'm just explaining why I think it 's probably crap .
No you are right , it IS crap .
If it is simply a tool to help divine the subject 's mood or mindset , why use ink blots at all ?
Why not just show them a mirror and ask them to describe themselves ?
Or a front page of a news paper ?
Or talk about the weather ?
Any number of 'tools ' could allow a quack , er psychiatrist a way of opening a dialogue with a subject that is tangential to the topic of mental health .
If the whole point of the 'test ' is to communicate with them in an indirect fashion and observe their reactions , there are many way of doing it that do n't involve what is a widely know trope .
One might actually say that BECAUSE the 'test ' is such a widely know cliche , you wo n't get a unguarded response from a subject and is therefore a worthless tool .
I have met a few psychiatrists over they years .
I would n't trust one further than I could throw em .
A psychiatrist is sitting in the park , eating lunch .
A duck lands next to his bench , and waits for a handout .
After a few minutes of being ignored , he quacks loudly at the psychiatrist .
The psychiatrist says , " yeah , but the money is good .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'m not saying a Rorschach test is crap.
I'm just explaining why I think it's probably crap.
No you are right, it IS crap.
If it is simply a tool to help divine the subject's mood or mindset, why use ink blots at all?
Why not just show them a mirror and ask them to describe themselves?
Or a front page of a news paper?
Or talk about the weather?
Any number of 'tools' could allow a quack, er psychiatrist a way of opening a dialogue with a subject that is tangential to the topic of mental health.
If the whole point of the 'test' is to communicate with them in an indirect fashion and observe their reactions, there are many way of doing it that don't involve what is a widely know trope.
One might actually say that BECAUSE the 'test' is such a widely know cliche, you won't get a unguarded response from a subject and is therefore a worthless tool.
I have met a few psychiatrists over they years.
I wouldn't trust one further than I could throw em.
A psychiatrist is sitting in the park, eating lunch.
A duck lands next to his bench, and waits for a handout.
After a few minutes of being ignored, he quacks loudly at the psychiatrist .
The psychiatrist says, "yeah, but the money is good.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28699087</id>
	<title>Re:its not !@# censorship</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1247583720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right that this wouldn't be censorship, but you're completely wrong to claim that censorship can only be performed by Governments.</p><p>The reason it wouldn't be censorship is that it's not censorship if someone decides for themselves not to publish something. It's not "censorship" if I choose not to say something; it's not censorship if Slashdot decides not to post a story; and it's not censorship if the user-run site Wikipedia collectively comes to a consensus of not publishing the images.</p><p>However, given that the images are clearly relevant to the article, there would have to be a damn good argument to not include them.</p><p>If however Slashdot decided to remove certain posts because someone had got offended, or if Wikimedia stepped in and said that the images be removed, then that would reasonably be called "censorship". The fact that they have a legal right to do so doesn't change the point (after all, Governments have a legal right too, since they write the laws).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right that this would n't be censorship , but you 're completely wrong to claim that censorship can only be performed by Governments.The reason it would n't be censorship is that it 's not censorship if someone decides for themselves not to publish something .
It 's not " censorship " if I choose not to say something ; it 's not censorship if Slashdot decides not to post a story ; and it 's not censorship if the user-run site Wikipedia collectively comes to a consensus of not publishing the images.However , given that the images are clearly relevant to the article , there would have to be a damn good argument to not include them.If however Slashdot decided to remove certain posts because someone had got offended , or if Wikimedia stepped in and said that the images be removed , then that would reasonably be called " censorship " .
The fact that they have a legal right to do so does n't change the point ( after all , Governments have a legal right too , since they write the laws ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right that this wouldn't be censorship, but you're completely wrong to claim that censorship can only be performed by Governments.The reason it wouldn't be censorship is that it's not censorship if someone decides for themselves not to publish something.
It's not "censorship" if I choose not to say something; it's not censorship if Slashdot decides not to post a story; and it's not censorship if the user-run site Wikipedia collectively comes to a consensus of not publishing the images.However, given that the images are clearly relevant to the article, there would have to be a damn good argument to not include them.If however Slashdot decided to remove certain posts because someone had got offended, or if Wikimedia stepped in and said that the images be removed, then that would reasonably be called "censorship".
The fact that they have a legal right to do so doesn't change the point (after all, Governments have a legal right too, since they write the laws).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697309</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696353</id>
	<title>Re:So what???</title>
	<author>sootman</author>
	<datestamp>1247565960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bzzt, wrong. <a href="http://deltabravo.net/custody/rorschach.php" title="deltabravo.net">They're mostly genitals.</a> [deltabravo.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bzzt , wrong .
They 're mostly genitals .
[ deltabravo.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bzzt, wrong.
They're mostly genitals.
[deltabravo.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696435</id>
	<title>seems the psychologists are rather focused on sex</title>
	<author>sgrover</author>
	<datestamp>1247566320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Taking a look through those blots without reading the descriptions below them, and I would get one set of answers.  Then when I read the descriptions, I am surprised how almost EVERYONE of them *could* be interpreted to be sexual in some way.  Some of the suggestions are obvious once you have read that description, but some are just odd.  "A vagina in the middle of the blot" - when the area is a solid color...  That's like saying you see vagina's when you close your eyes, or look at a wall that is a solid color.

Seems to me psychologists are overly interested in sex and the people that may be like minded...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Taking a look through those blots without reading the descriptions below them , and I would get one set of answers .
Then when I read the descriptions , I am surprised how almost EVERYONE of them * could * be interpreted to be sexual in some way .
Some of the suggestions are obvious once you have read that description , but some are just odd .
" A vagina in the middle of the blot " - when the area is a solid color... That 's like saying you see vagina 's when you close your eyes , or look at a wall that is a solid color .
Seems to me psychologists are overly interested in sex and the people that may be like minded.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taking a look through those blots without reading the descriptions below them, and I would get one set of answers.
Then when I read the descriptions, I am surprised how almost EVERYONE of them *could* be interpreted to be sexual in some way.
Some of the suggestions are obvious once you have read that description, but some are just odd.
"A vagina in the middle of the blot" - when the area is a solid color...  That's like saying you see vagina's when you close your eyes, or look at a wall that is a solid color.
Seems to me psychologists are overly interested in sex and the people that may be like minded...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697911</id>
	<title>Only ten images?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247574360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why couldn't more images be created, copyrighted, and used instead of (or in addition to) the original ten?</p><p>Also, isn't it *EXTREMELY* unlikely that any particular subject has viewed the original ten images on Wikipedia, and memorized a deceptive response?</p><p>Try mixing some of the original ten inkblots followed by some newly-created inkblot images. You will perhaps learn whether the subject has cheated (if their responses to the first group strongly disagree with the responses to the second).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why could n't more images be created , copyrighted , and used instead of ( or in addition to ) the original ten ? Also , is n't it * EXTREMELY * unlikely that any particular subject has viewed the original ten images on Wikipedia , and memorized a deceptive response ? Try mixing some of the original ten inkblots followed by some newly-created inkblot images .
You will perhaps learn whether the subject has cheated ( if their responses to the first group strongly disagree with the responses to the second ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why couldn't more images be created, copyrighted, and used instead of (or in addition to) the original ten?Also, isn't it *EXTREMELY* unlikely that any particular subject has viewed the original ten images on Wikipedia, and memorized a deceptive response?Try mixing some of the original ten inkblots followed by some newly-created inkblot images.
You will perhaps learn whether the subject has cheated (if their responses to the first group strongly disagree with the responses to the second).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28699967</id>
	<title>Re:So what???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247591460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Everyone knows they're all pictures of boobs anyway.</p></div><p>Plate 6 looks like a vagina with Excalibur stuck in it. Plate 4 is Sauron with a armored wang. Plate 2 looks like a goatse re-enactment gone wrong.</p><p>Where was my straitjacket again?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone knows they 're all pictures of boobs anyway.Plate 6 looks like a vagina with Excalibur stuck in it .
Plate 4 is Sauron with a armored wang .
Plate 2 looks like a goatse re-enactment gone wrong.Where was my straitjacket again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone knows they're all pictures of boobs anyway.Plate 6 looks like a vagina with Excalibur stuck in it.
Plate 4 is Sauron with a armored wang.
Plate 2 looks like a goatse re-enactment gone wrong.Where was my straitjacket again?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28700307</id>
	<title>Rorschach has long been discredited.</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1247594940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't care how much the "classical" psychologists want to keep it around... there are horror stories aplenty about how people have been involuntarily hospitalized over this <b>subjective, nonsensical "test"</b>. I am amazed that in all of these posts, I only found one (other than my own of course) where someone actually stated that the Rorschach had been discredited.
<br> <br>
Good riddance to a piece of garbage that has done such a terrible amount of damage to society and individuals.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't care how much the " classical " psychologists want to keep it around... there are horror stories aplenty about how people have been involuntarily hospitalized over this subjective , nonsensical " test " .
I am amazed that in all of these posts , I only found one ( other than my own of course ) where someone actually stated that the Rorschach had been discredited .
Good riddance to a piece of garbage that has done such a terrible amount of damage to society and individuals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't care how much the "classical" psychologists want to keep it around... there are horror stories aplenty about how people have been involuntarily hospitalized over this subjective, nonsensical "test".
I am amazed that in all of these posts, I only found one (other than my own of course) where someone actually stated that the Rorschach had been discredited.
Good riddance to a piece of garbage that has done such a terrible amount of damage to society and individuals.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28700215</id>
	<title>Re:I thought they..</title>
	<author>Reziac</author>
	<datestamp>1247593920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In that case, ANY inkblot should suffice. There is nothing special about these except that by now everyone in the industry knows the typical responses. Is standarization that critical to your ability to make a diagnosis?!</p><p>(Well, maybe to collecting from the insurance company...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In that case , ANY inkblot should suffice .
There is nothing special about these except that by now everyone in the industry knows the typical responses .
Is standarization that critical to your ability to make a diagnosis ? !
( Well , maybe to collecting from the insurance company... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In that case, ANY inkblot should suffice.
There is nothing special about these except that by now everyone in the industry knows the typical responses.
Is standarization that critical to your ability to make a diagnosis?!
(Well, maybe to collecting from the insurance company...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697447</id>
	<title>About prior exposure.</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1247571300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't see the "Bat" one as anything except a bat since I've seen it in batman comic books; saw how he saw it as a bat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't see the " Bat " one as anything except a bat since I 've seen it in batman comic books ; saw how he saw it as a bat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't see the "Bat" one as anything except a bat since I've seen it in batman comic books; saw how he saw it as a bat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697529</id>
	<title>Please post picts</title>
	<author>Openstandards.net</author>
	<datestamp>1247571660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>GigsVT, can you post a picture of what you are talking about, please?</htmltext>
<tokenext>GigsVT , can you post a picture of what you are talking about , please ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GigsVT, can you post a picture of what you are talking about, please?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696377</id>
	<title>This is not a troll</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1247566080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they are that important, perhaps they should have patented them?</p><p>Just a thought.  After all, you can patent a ham sandwich nowadays, so it can't be too hard to patent something actually *useful*.  And it would hopefully keep them out of the public's hands.</p><p>Then again, perhaps it's time for new inkblots.  They did it once... Not like it's rocket science or anything...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they are that important , perhaps they should have patented them ? Just a thought .
After all , you can patent a ham sandwich nowadays , so it ca n't be too hard to patent something actually * useful * .
And it would hopefully keep them out of the public 's hands.Then again , perhaps it 's time for new inkblots .
They did it once... Not like it 's rocket science or anything.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they are that important, perhaps they should have patented them?Just a thought.
After all, you can patent a ham sandwich nowadays, so it can't be too hard to patent something actually *useful*.
And it would hopefully keep them out of the public's hands.Then again, perhaps it's time for new inkblots.
They did it once... Not like it's rocket science or anything...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695951</id>
	<title>So what???</title>
	<author>Muad'Dave</author>
	<datestamp>1247564580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everyone knows they're all pictures of boobs anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone knows they 're all pictures of boobs anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone knows they're all pictures of boobs anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28703601</id>
	<title>Re:Wait until the optometrists...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247673420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Pssst! The big letter at the top is an "E."</p></div><p>Huh ? Look more like an F to me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pssst !
The big letter at the top is an " E. " Huh ?
Look more like an F to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pssst!
The big letter at the top is an "E."Huh ?
Look more like an F to me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697935</id>
	<title>Re:My Psyc Professor Already Invalidated Them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247574540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>But despite what I know, every time I see an ink blot, I think "ink blot, symmetrical about [X,Y] axis." What's that make me? <br> <br>autistic</htmltext>
<tokenext>But despite what I know , every time I see an ink blot , I think " ink blot , symmetrical about [ X,Y ] axis .
" What 's that make me ?
autistic</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But despite what I know, every time I see an ink blot, I think "ink blot, symmetrical about [X,Y] axis.
" What's that make me?
autistic</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697501</id>
	<title>Re:I thought they..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247571540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; a stethoscope is a useless tool, since it never provides a complete diagnosis</p><p>Ahem.</p><p>"He's dead, Jim."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; a stethoscope is a useless tool , since it never provides a complete diagnosisAhem .
" He 's dead , Jim .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; a stethoscope is a useless tool, since it never provides a complete diagnosisAhem.
"He's dead, Jim.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696899</id>
	<title>Re:Is it Human Nature to Foul One's Home?</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1247568780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, "anyone who wants to do research" would include anyone looking it up on Wikipedia (excluding those using the "Random Article" link), wouldn't it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , " anyone who wants to do research " would include anyone looking it up on Wikipedia ( excluding those using the " Random Article " link ) , would n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, "anyone who wants to do research" would include anyone looking it up on Wikipedia (excluding those using the "Random Article" link), wouldn't it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695975</id>
	<title>The blots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247564640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here are some examples of ink blots, and patient reaction.<br><a href="http://pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF233-Psychoanalyst.jpg" title="pbfcomics.com">http://pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF233-Psychoanalyst.jpg</a> [pbfcomics.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here are some examples of ink blots , and patient reaction.http : //pbfcomics.com/ ? cid = PBF233-Psychoanalyst.jpg [ pbfcomics.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here are some examples of ink blots, and patient reaction.http://pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF233-Psychoanalyst.jpg [pbfcomics.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695961</id>
	<title>Make some new ones?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247564580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How hard would it be to just make ten new ones? Hell I could do it for them, fold a piss of paper in half and take a piss on it. Now you don't have to worry about it for my lifespan + 70 years.


I'm just worried some overzealous wikipedia editors might try to kill me so it's released into the public domain earlier.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How hard would it be to just make ten new ones ?
Hell I could do it for them , fold a piss of paper in half and take a piss on it .
Now you do n't have to worry about it for my lifespan + 70 years .
I 'm just worried some overzealous wikipedia editors might try to kill me so it 's released into the public domain earlier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How hard would it be to just make ten new ones?
Hell I could do it for them, fold a piss of paper in half and take a piss on it.
Now you don't have to worry about it for my lifespan + 70 years.
I'm just worried some overzealous wikipedia editors might try to kill me so it's released into the public domain earlier.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696123</id>
	<title>Another excuse to ignore public domain.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247565180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I almost feel for the American Psychiatric Association. Unfortunately, there have been a lot of other people arguing that letting their pet item go into the public domain shouldn't be allowed, for various reasons. Mickey Mouse is, after all, a national treasure, and Disney just wants to conserve that special piece of history, it's really not about the money. We, the people, certainly could give the Rorschach blots some kind of special status via congress. But if we do, there will be a thousand companies trying to stretch that law to cover whatever they think there is some more money in, so I have to come down on the side of we shouldn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I almost feel for the American Psychiatric Association .
Unfortunately , there have been a lot of other people arguing that letting their pet item go into the public domain should n't be allowed , for various reasons .
Mickey Mouse is , after all , a national treasure , and Disney just wants to conserve that special piece of history , it 's really not about the money .
We , the people , certainly could give the Rorschach blots some kind of special status via congress .
But if we do , there will be a thousand companies trying to stretch that law to cover whatever they think there is some more money in , so I have to come down on the side of we should n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I almost feel for the American Psychiatric Association.
Unfortunately, there have been a lot of other people arguing that letting their pet item go into the public domain shouldn't be allowed, for various reasons.
Mickey Mouse is, after all, a national treasure, and Disney just wants to conserve that special piece of history, it's really not about the money.
We, the people, certainly could give the Rorschach blots some kind of special status via congress.
But if we do, there will be a thousand companies trying to stretch that law to cover whatever they think there is some more money in, so I have to come down on the side of we shouldn't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28698399</id>
	<title>Re:I thought they..</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1247577960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You can show them to someone and then interpret their answers and use that to help show you the state of mind of the person answering. But, we (as a scientific community) still don't understand the inner workings of the mind. Someone's answers are highly open for interpretation. Even if we can agree that a certain type of answer or behavior while answering is 'abnormal', we don't know what causes it.</p></div></blockquote><p>There's a type of brain tumor that, if it has a particular genetic abnormality, is very likely to respond to chemotherapy.  If it doesn't have that genetic abnormality, it is very unlikely to respond to chemotherapy.  We have no idea what exactly that abnormality does, or why it should cause the tumor to be chemosensitive.  But it does.</p><p>Now, your argument against the Rorschach test is that, even if it works, since we don't know the details of what it's testing, we shouldn't use it.  That argument applies equally well to that genetic abnormality in those tumor cells.</p><p>IF the Rorschach test DOES work (I don't know if it's been scientifically validated or not), then there's no reason not to use it, and considerable reasons to use it.  Requiring naive subject doesn't affect that in the least.  We also require naive subjects for double blind clinical trails.  Should we not do those anymore?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can show them to someone and then interpret their answers and use that to help show you the state of mind of the person answering .
But , we ( as a scientific community ) still do n't understand the inner workings of the mind .
Someone 's answers are highly open for interpretation .
Even if we can agree that a certain type of answer or behavior while answering is 'abnormal ' , we do n't know what causes it.There 's a type of brain tumor that , if it has a particular genetic abnormality , is very likely to respond to chemotherapy .
If it does n't have that genetic abnormality , it is very unlikely to respond to chemotherapy .
We have no idea what exactly that abnormality does , or why it should cause the tumor to be chemosensitive .
But it does.Now , your argument against the Rorschach test is that , even if it works , since we do n't know the details of what it 's testing , we should n't use it .
That argument applies equally well to that genetic abnormality in those tumor cells.IF the Rorschach test DOES work ( I do n't know if it 's been scientifically validated or not ) , then there 's no reason not to use it , and considerable reasons to use it .
Requiring naive subject does n't affect that in the least .
We also require naive subjects for double blind clinical trails .
Should we not do those anymore ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can show them to someone and then interpret their answers and use that to help show you the state of mind of the person answering.
But, we (as a scientific community) still don't understand the inner workings of the mind.
Someone's answers are highly open for interpretation.
Even if we can agree that a certain type of answer or behavior while answering is 'abnormal', we don't know what causes it.There's a type of brain tumor that, if it has a particular genetic abnormality, is very likely to respond to chemotherapy.
If it doesn't have that genetic abnormality, it is very unlikely to respond to chemotherapy.
We have no idea what exactly that abnormality does, or why it should cause the tumor to be chemosensitive.
But it does.Now, your argument against the Rorschach test is that, even if it works, since we don't know the details of what it's testing, we shouldn't use it.
That argument applies equally well to that genetic abnormality in those tumor cells.IF the Rorschach test DOES work (I don't know if it's been scientifically validated or not), then there's no reason not to use it, and considerable reasons to use it.
Requiring naive subject doesn't affect that in the least.
We also require naive subjects for double blind clinical trails.
Should we not do those anymore?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28705195</id>
	<title>Re:The blots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247681460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NSFW.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NSFW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NSFW.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697299</id>
	<title>Journal entry, 14th July</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1247570580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rumours on Slashdot about ink blot controversy.  Talk of fighting amongst Wikipedia editors.  They will cry out to me to arbitrate their edit wars.  And I will say No.</p><p>Hurm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rumours on Slashdot about ink blot controversy .
Talk of fighting amongst Wikipedia editors .
They will cry out to me to arbitrate their edit wars .
And I will say No.Hurm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rumours on Slashdot about ink blot controversy.
Talk of fighting amongst Wikipedia editors.
They will cry out to me to arbitrate their edit wars.
And I will say No.Hurm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696883</id>
	<title>It is always unethical to withhold information</title>
	<author>sperxios10</author>
	<datestamp>1247568720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is ok to archive those pirctures, as long as you have taken all precautions to avoid too-easy exposure.

For instance, the wikipedia's page should not include the pictures unprotected,
but should rather use CSS to hide them with a click-of-a-button.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is ok to archive those pirctures , as long as you have taken all precautions to avoid too-easy exposure .
For instance , the wikipedia 's page should not include the pictures unprotected , but should rather use CSS to hide them with a click-of-a-button .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is ok to archive those pirctures, as long as you have taken all precautions to avoid too-easy exposure.
For instance, the wikipedia's page should not include the pictures unprotected,
but should rather use CSS to hide them with a click-of-a-button.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696329</id>
	<title>Are they still taken seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247565900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm in grad school in a health-related field.  I've had more than one professor tell me that the ink blot tests are no longer taken seriously because they are too subjective.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm in grad school in a health-related field .
I 've had more than one professor tell me that the ink blot tests are no longer taken seriously because they are too subjective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm in grad school in a health-related field.
I've had more than one professor tell me that the ink blot tests are no longer taken seriously because they are too subjective.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697717</id>
	<title>Re:My Psyc Professor Already Invalidated Them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247573040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But despite what I know, every time I see an ink blot, I think "ink blot, symmetrical about [X,Y] axis." What's that make me?</p></div><p>
The godawfully boring guy no one wants to get stuck talking to at parties?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But despite what I know , every time I see an ink blot , I think " ink blot , symmetrical about [ X,Y ] axis .
" What 's that make me ?
The godawfully boring guy no one wants to get stuck talking to at parties ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But despite what I know, every time I see an ink blot, I think "ink blot, symmetrical about [X,Y] axis.
" What's that make me?
The godawfully boring guy no one wants to get stuck talking to at parties?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28698763</id>
	<title>Re:I thought they..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247580780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'This sound....it's always indicative for needing an expensive follow up'</p></div><p>There, I fixed it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'This sound....it 's always indicative for needing an expensive follow up'There , I fixed it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'This sound....it's always indicative for needing an expensive follow up'There, I fixed it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28700427</id>
	<title>Re:Make some new ones?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1247596260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What makes the "genuine" test so important is that you have a tested set of subjects that you can draw parallels to. Well, depending on your point of view you can't, but it's done. The test has been shown to many people who have mental disorders and if a certain percentage of them saw a certain thing in the pictures, the assumption is that if you see the same thing you're also suffering from that disorder.</p><p>Whether or not this is valid is something I don't want to decide. But making a new test would require that those "priming" tests are repeated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes the " genuine " test so important is that you have a tested set of subjects that you can draw parallels to .
Well , depending on your point of view you ca n't , but it 's done .
The test has been shown to many people who have mental disorders and if a certain percentage of them saw a certain thing in the pictures , the assumption is that if you see the same thing you 're also suffering from that disorder.Whether or not this is valid is something I do n't want to decide .
But making a new test would require that those " priming " tests are repeated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes the "genuine" test so important is that you have a tested set of subjects that you can draw parallels to.
Well, depending on your point of view you can't, but it's done.
The test has been shown to many people who have mental disorders and if a certain percentage of them saw a certain thing in the pictures, the assumption is that if you see the same thing you're also suffering from that disorder.Whether or not this is valid is something I don't want to decide.
But making a new test would require that those "priming" tests are repeated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696983</id>
	<title>Re:I thought they..</title>
	<author>fishbowl</author>
	<datestamp>1247569140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;It can be EXTREMELY hard to get people to admit stuff.</p><p>In clinical situations it's often the opposite.  You (the mental health professional) really don't care who did what to what orifice, but your patients are going to tell you anyway, in lurid detail.  I don't know where you get the idea that it's hard to get patients to "admit stuff."  They volunteer plenty, if they trust you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; It can be EXTREMELY hard to get people to admit stuff.In clinical situations it 's often the opposite .
You ( the mental health professional ) really do n't care who did what to what orifice , but your patients are going to tell you anyway , in lurid detail .
I do n't know where you get the idea that it 's hard to get patients to " admit stuff .
" They volunteer plenty , if they trust you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;It can be EXTREMELY hard to get people to admit stuff.In clinical situations it's often the opposite.
You (the mental health professional) really don't care who did what to what orifice, but your patients are going to tell you anyway, in lurid detail.
I don't know where you get the idea that it's hard to get patients to "admit stuff.
"  They volunteer plenty, if they trust you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696891</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697385</id>
	<title>Re:I thought they..</title>
	<author>dimeglio</author>
	<datestamp>1247571000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would argue that prior knowledge of the test images doesn't change my perception of them unless I am trained to interpret the results. Also, where does a psychiatrist/psychologist turn to when he himself needs metal treatment?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would argue that prior knowledge of the test images does n't change my perception of them unless I am trained to interpret the results .
Also , where does a psychiatrist/psychologist turn to when he himself needs metal treatment ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would argue that prior knowledge of the test images doesn't change my perception of them unless I am trained to interpret the results.
Also, where does a psychiatrist/psychologist turn to when he himself needs metal treatment?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696849</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28698247</id>
	<title>Re:I thought they..</title>
	<author>hardburn</author>
	<datestamp>1247576700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, where does a psychiatrist/psychologist turn to when he himself needs metal treatment?</p></div><p>Good question. I like a copper pipe, but some prefer steel.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , where does a psychiatrist/psychologist turn to when he himself needs metal treatment ? Good question .
I like a copper pipe , but some prefer steel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, where does a psychiatrist/psychologist turn to when he himself needs metal treatment?Good question.
I like a copper pipe, but some prefer steel.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28702017</id>
	<title>Wtf?</title>
	<author>bluefoxlucid</author>
	<datestamp>1247664240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of these is clearly 2 naked people.  And the first slide looks like a billion horribly evil things.  Two look like vaginas.  One looks like an evil wizard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of these is clearly 2 naked people .
And the first slide looks like a billion horribly evil things .
Two look like vaginas .
One looks like an evil wizard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of these is clearly 2 naked people.
And the first slide looks like a billion horribly evil things.
Two look like vaginas.
One looks like an evil wizard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696339</id>
	<title>Contest: what's the earliest publication?</title>
	<author>dpbsmith</author>
	<datestamp>1247565960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The earliest publication to the general lay public that I personally know of is their presentation on pages 118-127 of William Poundstone's book <em>Big Secrets,</em> Quill, 1983, ISBN 0-688-04830-7.</p><p>In other words, they were out there before the Web was a gleam in Tim Berners-Lee's eye.</p><p>Anyone know of any earlier publications?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The earliest publication to the general lay public that I personally know of is their presentation on pages 118-127 of William Poundstone 's book Big Secrets , Quill , 1983 , ISBN 0-688-04830-7.In other words , they were out there before the Web was a gleam in Tim Berners-Lee 's eye.Anyone know of any earlier publications ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The earliest publication to the general lay public that I personally know of is their presentation on pages 118-127 of William Poundstone's book Big Secrets, Quill, 1983, ISBN 0-688-04830-7.In other words, they were out there before the Web was a gleam in Tim Berners-Lee's eye.Anyone know of any earlier publications?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696679</id>
	<title>Silly</title>
	<author>Murpster</author>
	<datestamp>1247567520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The pictures have been around for a while anyway... and as already pointed out by many, it's a pretty bogus test with about as much science behind it as reading hot wax dropped in cold water.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The pictures have been around for a while anyway... and as already pointed out by many , it 's a pretty bogus test with about as much science behind it as reading hot wax dropped in cold water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The pictures have been around for a while anyway... and as already pointed out by many, it's a pretty bogus test with about as much science behind it as reading hot wax dropped in cold water.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28700993</id>
	<title>Re:I thought they..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247649300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"We have shown that the Rorschach has little validity as a diagnostic tool<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... Until very recently, Rorschach proponents have claimed that the test is useful for diagnostic purposes. It is striking, therefore, that the commentators on our article do not dispute strongly its conclusion that Rorschach scores generally are unrelated to psychiatric diagnoses. Instead, one commentator argues that the test's true usefulness consists in identifying symptoms and predicting behavioral outcomes. However, only three specific examples are given to support this assertion. Although the Rorschach may be useful for these other purposes, the burden of proof falls squarely on the test's proponents to document such claims." <br>-Limitations of the Rorschach as a diagnostic tool: A reply to Garfield (2000), Lerner (2000), and Weiner (2000) Journal of Clinical Psychology Volume 56 Issue 3, Pages 441 - 448</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We have shown that the Rorschach has little validity as a diagnostic tool .... Until very recently , Rorschach proponents have claimed that the test is useful for diagnostic purposes .
It is striking , therefore , that the commentators on our article do not dispute strongly its conclusion that Rorschach scores generally are unrelated to psychiatric diagnoses .
Instead , one commentator argues that the test 's true usefulness consists in identifying symptoms and predicting behavioral outcomes .
However , only three specific examples are given to support this assertion .
Although the Rorschach may be useful for these other purposes , the burden of proof falls squarely on the test 's proponents to document such claims .
" -Limitations of the Rorschach as a diagnostic tool : A reply to Garfield ( 2000 ) , Lerner ( 2000 ) , and Weiner ( 2000 ) Journal of Clinical Psychology Volume 56 Issue 3 , Pages 441 - 448</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We have shown that the Rorschach has little validity as a diagnostic tool .... Until very recently, Rorschach proponents have claimed that the test is useful for diagnostic purposes.
It is striking, therefore, that the commentators on our article do not dispute strongly its conclusion that Rorschach scores generally are unrelated to psychiatric diagnoses.
Instead, one commentator argues that the test's true usefulness consists in identifying symptoms and predicting behavioral outcomes.
However, only three specific examples are given to support this assertion.
Although the Rorschach may be useful for these other purposes, the burden of proof falls squarely on the test's proponents to document such claims.
" -Limitations of the Rorschach as a diagnostic tool: A reply to Garfield (2000), Lerner (2000), and Weiner (2000) Journal of Clinical Psychology Volume 56 Issue 3, Pages 441 - 448</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696075</id>
	<title>People must be told.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247564940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where are you going?<br>Back to basement. Back to slashdot. Evil must be punished. People must be told.<br>Rorshach... you know I can't let you do that.<br>Huhhh... of course. Must protect Ballmer's new utopia. One more body amongst foundations makes little difference. Well? What are you waiting for? Mod me down.<br>Rorshach...<br>Mod me down!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where are you going ? Back to basement .
Back to slashdot .
Evil must be punished .
People must be told.Rorshach... you know I ca n't let you do that.Huhhh... of course .
Must protect Ballmer 's new utopia .
One more body amongst foundations makes little difference .
Well ? What are you waiting for ?
Mod me down.Rorshach...Mod me down !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where are you going?Back to basement.
Back to slashdot.
Evil must be punished.
People must be told.Rorshach... you know I can't let you do that.Huhhh... of course.
Must protect Ballmer's new utopia.
One more body amongst foundations makes little difference.
Well? What are you waiting for?
Mod me down.Rorshach...Mod me down!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28701563</id>
	<title>Truthiness Overload!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247658840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wikipedia vs Rorschach - irony meter to 11. Who should win? Who should care?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia vs Rorschach - irony meter to 11 .
Who should win ?
Who should care ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia vs Rorschach - irony meter to 11.
Who should win?
Who should care?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696665</id>
	<title>Re:Wait until the optometrists...</title>
	<author>istartedi</author>
	<datestamp>1247567460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's actually serious, since pilots
trying to make retirement could use it to pass.  I imagine
they've thought of that before.  At least I hope they have,
and are mixing up several versions of the test.  Since we
all have printers now, they could even print a unique one
for each exam if it's something that critical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's actually serious , since pilots trying to make retirement could use it to pass .
I imagine they 've thought of that before .
At least I hope they have , and are mixing up several versions of the test .
Since we all have printers now , they could even print a unique one for each exam if it 's something that critical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's actually serious, since pilots
trying to make retirement could use it to pass.
I imagine
they've thought of that before.
At least I hope they have,
and are mixing up several versions of the test.
Since we
all have printers now, they could even print a unique one
for each exam if it's something that critical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697039</id>
	<title>The RIGHT WAY to do a Rorschach test</title>
	<author>mangu</author>
	<datestamp>1247569380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The test is, and always has been, pop-psychology nonsense</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, that depends on what you call a "Rorschach test". Showing someone a bunch of inkspots and asking what they mean seems pretty much like "pop-psychology" to me. But that doesn't mean *anY* Rorschach test is bullshit.</p><p>For instance, ask someone: "How do you spell 'Rorschach'?"</p><p>If they do it correctly, you can say, with a high degree of confidence, that he or she has an excellent memory.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The test is , and always has been , pop-psychology nonsenseWell , that depends on what you call a " Rorschach test " .
Showing someone a bunch of inkspots and asking what they mean seems pretty much like " pop-psychology " to me .
But that does n't mean * anY * Rorschach test is bullshit.For instance , ask someone : " How do you spell 'Rorschach ' ?
" If they do it correctly , you can say , with a high degree of confidence , that he or she has an excellent memory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The test is, and always has been, pop-psychology nonsenseWell, that depends on what you call a "Rorschach test".
Showing someone a bunch of inkspots and asking what they mean seems pretty much like "pop-psychology" to me.
But that doesn't mean *anY* Rorschach test is bullshit.For instance, ask someone: "How do you spell 'Rorschach'?
"If they do it correctly, you can say, with a high degree of confidence, that he or she has an excellent memory.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696993</id>
	<title>Re:Wait until the optometrists...</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1247569200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah - and letters are far easier to generate than inkblots, even. One doctor I went to here in Germany had a beamer-projected, randomized chart. The others all had dozens of slides to pick from.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah - and letters are far easier to generate than inkblots , even .
One doctor I went to here in Germany had a beamer-projected , randomized chart .
The others all had dozens of slides to pick from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah - and letters are far easier to generate than inkblots, even.
One doctor I went to here in Germany had a beamer-projected, randomized chart.
The others all had dozens of slides to pick from.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697131</id>
	<title>Re:My Psyc Professor Already Invalidated Them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247569800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know. I'm the same way with my television. I think "2x2 array of pixels on an [X,Y] plane." I don't see anything. Just light on a screen.</p><p>Apparently people "see" things and people in these pixels. Crazy!</p><p>Oh -- and how about these artists! Pretentious lot they are! Throw some paint on fiber and tell me it's a vagina. I'm not stupid. I know it isn't a vagina.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know .
I 'm the same way with my television .
I think " 2x2 array of pixels on an [ X,Y ] plane .
" I do n't see anything .
Just light on a screen.Apparently people " see " things and people in these pixels .
Crazy ! Oh -- and how about these artists !
Pretentious lot they are !
Throw some paint on fiber and tell me it 's a vagina .
I 'm not stupid .
I know it is n't a vagina .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know.
I'm the same way with my television.
I think "2x2 array of pixels on an [X,Y] plane.
" I don't see anything.
Just light on a screen.Apparently people "see" things and people in these pixels.
Crazy!Oh -- and how about these artists!
Pretentious lot they are!
Throw some paint on fiber and tell me it's a vagina.
I'm not stupid.
I know it isn't a vagina.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697327</id>
	<title>Re:My Psyc Professor Already Invalidated Them</title>
	<author>Kehvarl</author>
	<datestamp>1247570760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and resemble... look like, butterfly.  Bird.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and resemble... look like , butterfly .
Bird .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and resemble... look like, butterfly.
Bird.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696153</id>
	<title>Wikipedia has these debates all the time</title>
	<author>panoptical2</author>
	<datestamp>1247565360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I used to edit Wikipedia a lot, and during that time, I saw a lot of these debates. This is nothing new, just a heated debate over whether to include an image (in this case the Rorschach test images) based upon ethics and Wikipedia policy (which there is actually very little).<br> <br>

Essentially what will happen (or has already happened, I didn't read the whole debate), is that the definition of "consensus" will be called into question, as that's what runs Wikipedia, and is what decides these debates. However, the Wikipedia policy of consensus is so vague and non-standardized that many debates like this end without consensus, and can even escalate into an edit war, followed by admins having to step in. (which is one of the reasons why I no longer edit it)<br> <br>

I really don't see why this specific debate made it on the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. index, there have been many other and similar debates like it, many having much larger implications concerning censorship on Wikipedia by recommendation of a 3rd party organization.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to edit Wikipedia a lot , and during that time , I saw a lot of these debates .
This is nothing new , just a heated debate over whether to include an image ( in this case the Rorschach test images ) based upon ethics and Wikipedia policy ( which there is actually very little ) .
Essentially what will happen ( or has already happened , I did n't read the whole debate ) , is that the definition of " consensus " will be called into question , as that 's what runs Wikipedia , and is what decides these debates .
However , the Wikipedia policy of consensus is so vague and non-standardized that many debates like this end without consensus , and can even escalate into an edit war , followed by admins having to step in .
( which is one of the reasons why I no longer edit it ) I really do n't see why this specific debate made it on the / .
index , there have been many other and similar debates like it , many having much larger implications concerning censorship on Wikipedia by recommendation of a 3rd party organization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to edit Wikipedia a lot, and during that time, I saw a lot of these debates.
This is nothing new, just a heated debate over whether to include an image (in this case the Rorschach test images) based upon ethics and Wikipedia policy (which there is actually very little).
Essentially what will happen (or has already happened, I didn't read the whole debate), is that the definition of "consensus" will be called into question, as that's what runs Wikipedia, and is what decides these debates.
However, the Wikipedia policy of consensus is so vague and non-standardized that many debates like this end without consensus, and can even escalate into an edit war, followed by admins having to step in.
(which is one of the reasons why I no longer edit it) 

I really don't see why this specific debate made it on the /.
index, there have been many other and similar debates like it, many having much larger implications concerning censorship on Wikipedia by recommendation of a 3rd party organization.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696391</id>
	<title>Is it Human Nature to Foul One's Home?</title>
	<author>MarkvW</author>
	<datestamp>1247566140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Human being seem to always put their own short-term self-interest ahead of group self-interest, even when group self-interest is in the individual's longer term self-interest.  There is no good reason to broadcast the Rohrschach test.  Anybody who wants to do research can access it without any problem.  Nobody else has any legitimate reason to access it unless they're being examined.</p><p>Nevertheless . . .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Human being seem to always put their own short-term self-interest ahead of group self-interest , even when group self-interest is in the individual 's longer term self-interest .
There is no good reason to broadcast the Rohrschach test .
Anybody who wants to do research can access it without any problem .
Nobody else has any legitimate reason to access it unless they 're being examined.Nevertheless .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Human being seem to always put their own short-term self-interest ahead of group self-interest, even when group self-interest is in the individual's longer term self-interest.
There is no good reason to broadcast the Rohrschach test.
Anybody who wants to do research can access it without any problem.
Nobody else has any legitimate reason to access it unless they're being examined.Nevertheless .
. .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696427</id>
	<title>I thought this was illegal...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247566260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This test is no different than calling Miss Cleo in the late 90's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This test is no different than calling Miss Cleo in the late 90 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This test is no different than calling Miss Cleo in the late 90's.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28703339</id>
	<title>Re:I thought they..</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1247671800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A "phobia" isn't necessarily a fear, it can also be an irrational loathing. The quetion of whether or not loathing of homosexuality is a phobia (loathing vomit isn't a phobia unless extreme, loathing butterflys is).</p><p>The question is whether the loathing is rational or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A " phobia " is n't necessarily a fear , it can also be an irrational loathing .
The quetion of whether or not loathing of homosexuality is a phobia ( loathing vomit is n't a phobia unless extreme , loathing butterflys is ) .The question is whether the loathing is rational or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A "phobia" isn't necessarily a fear, it can also be an irrational loathing.
The quetion of whether or not loathing of homosexuality is a phobia (loathing vomit isn't a phobia unless extreme, loathing butterflys is).The question is whether the loathing is rational or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28698011</id>
	<title>Malarky.</title>
	<author>DoninIN</author>
	<datestamp>1247575140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We haven't found this whole test to be complete and utter rubbish by now? I can't believe that this thing has the scientific value of measuring the bumps on the heads of your patients I can't see how screwing it up by giving out the images to the public could possibly make a single bit of difference. They are random blots of ink, they show them to people. They compare the answers those people give to a set of answers given by a variety of other people. Seriously, that's the test, they might as well use chicken guts. The whole thing seems utterly ridiculous to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have n't found this whole test to be complete and utter rubbish by now ?
I ca n't believe that this thing has the scientific value of measuring the bumps on the heads of your patients I ca n't see how screwing it up by giving out the images to the public could possibly make a single bit of difference .
They are random blots of ink , they show them to people .
They compare the answers those people give to a set of answers given by a variety of other people .
Seriously , that 's the test , they might as well use chicken guts .
The whole thing seems utterly ridiculous to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We haven't found this whole test to be complete and utter rubbish by now?
I can't believe that this thing has the scientific value of measuring the bumps on the heads of your patients I can't see how screwing it up by giving out the images to the public could possibly make a single bit of difference.
They are random blots of ink, they show them to people.
They compare the answers those people give to a set of answers given by a variety of other people.
Seriously, that's the test, they might as well use chicken guts.
The whole thing seems utterly ridiculous to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696865</id>
	<title>I'd never seen these before</title>
	<author>SaidinUnleashed</author>
	<datestamp>1247568660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>These are really cool, and quite beautiful. I think it'd be a shame to hide them from the public, simply from an artistic standpoint. Very pretty.</htmltext>
<tokenext>These are really cool , and quite beautiful .
I think it 'd be a shame to hide them from the public , simply from an artistic standpoint .
Very pretty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These are really cool, and quite beautiful.
I think it'd be a shame to hide them from the public, simply from an artistic standpoint.
Very pretty.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28698735</id>
	<title>Re:Rorschach Censorship</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1247580480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh, dear. I \_recognize\_ those vaginas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , dear .
I \ _recognize \ _ those vaginas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, dear.
I \_recognize\_ those vaginas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28699267</id>
	<title>I can understand...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247585160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a kid, I hated class and would often skip classes by hanging around the nurses office. In doing so, I incidentally memorized a fair chunk of the eye chart while killing time there. I can recite the top 6 or 7 lines from memory alone.</p><p>I'm horribly myopic. You know what kind of a pain in the ass it is to have an eye test each year when you know the answers going in?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a kid , I hated class and would often skip classes by hanging around the nurses office .
In doing so , I incidentally memorized a fair chunk of the eye chart while killing time there .
I can recite the top 6 or 7 lines from memory alone.I 'm horribly myopic .
You know what kind of a pain in the ass it is to have an eye test each year when you know the answers going in ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a kid, I hated class and would often skip classes by hanging around the nurses office.
In doing so, I incidentally memorized a fair chunk of the eye chart while killing time there.
I can recite the top 6 or 7 lines from memory alone.I'm horribly myopic.
You know what kind of a pain in the ass it is to have an eye test each year when you know the answers going in?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697755</id>
	<title>Re:I thought they..</title>
	<author>ajs</author>
	<datestamp>1247573220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A stethoscope doesn't provide a diagnosis...it just allows the user to hear things that normally can't be heard.  It's not subjective at all.</p></div><p>Nor are the results of the Rorschach test. If they are evaluated subjectively, you've done it wrong. It's just a stethescope. I'm not interested in how your responses make me feel. I'm interested in how your responses meet certain basic, fixed parameters. I am essentially listing to the sound of your mental state for certain irregularities which promote one diagnosis over another. That's what a stethescope does, and it's what a Rorschach does.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The effectiveness of the stethoscope can easily be measured and confirmed.  The sounds the stethoscope pick up (typically heart beats/breathing - I'm guessing?) have been *proven* as a useful diagnostic tool.</p></div><p>Quite true.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem most people have with the Rorschach test or 'tool', however you want to word it - is that it doesn't measure anything.  It's some pictures.  They don't do ANYTHING.</p></div><p>Well, in that sense, a stethescope is just some tubes and connectors. It doesn't do anything.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>You can show them to someone and then interpret their answers</p></div><p>You can, but then you would be administering a test of your own devising. That's fine, but it's not a Rorschach test, even if you used the standard Rorschach series cards.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But, we (as a scientific community) still don't understand the inner workings of the mind.  Someone's answers are highly open for interpretation.</p></div><p>Yes and no. There's as much interpretation in the results of a Rorschach test as there is in the results of a stethescope. You have to listen carefully and discern small variations. The parameters are well-understood, but there's a skill in applying them correctly in both cases. Even in the interpretation of an MRI or infrared sky survey there's a great deal of skill involved and the interpretation can most certainly be done wrong in all of the aforementioned cases. The universe is a messy place, and all data is suspect.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Even if we can agree that a certain type of answer or behavior while answering is 'abnormal'</p></div><p>Abnormal isn't useful. What's useful is data.</p><p>When you look through a telescope and see that it's light bends a certain way when pushed through optics, you don't say, "that star is abnormal" and leave it at that. You classify the star's optical properties and compare that to the optical properties of other stars. There's no difference, here. The test is designed to allow you to derive a set of metrics by which one patient can be compared to a universe of other patients.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>we don't know what causes it.</p></div><p>We don't know what causes gravity and electromagnetism to interact in the way they do, but that doesn't stop us from classifying the behaviors of stars.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A stethoscope does n't provide a diagnosis...it just allows the user to hear things that normally ca n't be heard .
It 's not subjective at all.Nor are the results of the Rorschach test .
If they are evaluated subjectively , you 've done it wrong .
It 's just a stethescope .
I 'm not interested in how your responses make me feel .
I 'm interested in how your responses meet certain basic , fixed parameters .
I am essentially listing to the sound of your mental state for certain irregularities which promote one diagnosis over another .
That 's what a stethescope does , and it 's what a Rorschach does.The effectiveness of the stethoscope can easily be measured and confirmed .
The sounds the stethoscope pick up ( typically heart beats/breathing - I 'm guessing ?
) have been * proven * as a useful diagnostic tool.Quite true.The problem most people have with the Rorschach test or 'tool ' , however you want to word it - is that it does n't measure anything .
It 's some pictures .
They do n't do ANYTHING.Well , in that sense , a stethescope is just some tubes and connectors .
It does n't do anything.You can show them to someone and then interpret their answersYou can , but then you would be administering a test of your own devising .
That 's fine , but it 's not a Rorschach test , even if you used the standard Rorschach series cards.But , we ( as a scientific community ) still do n't understand the inner workings of the mind .
Someone 's answers are highly open for interpretation.Yes and no .
There 's as much interpretation in the results of a Rorschach test as there is in the results of a stethescope .
You have to listen carefully and discern small variations .
The parameters are well-understood , but there 's a skill in applying them correctly in both cases .
Even in the interpretation of an MRI or infrared sky survey there 's a great deal of skill involved and the interpretation can most certainly be done wrong in all of the aforementioned cases .
The universe is a messy place , and all data is suspect.Even if we can agree that a certain type of answer or behavior while answering is 'abnormal'Abnormal is n't useful .
What 's useful is data.When you look through a telescope and see that it 's light bends a certain way when pushed through optics , you do n't say , " that star is abnormal " and leave it at that .
You classify the star 's optical properties and compare that to the optical properties of other stars .
There 's no difference , here .
The test is designed to allow you to derive a set of metrics by which one patient can be compared to a universe of other patients.we do n't know what causes it.We do n't know what causes gravity and electromagnetism to interact in the way they do , but that does n't stop us from classifying the behaviors of stars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A stethoscope doesn't provide a diagnosis...it just allows the user to hear things that normally can't be heard.
It's not subjective at all.Nor are the results of the Rorschach test.
If they are evaluated subjectively, you've done it wrong.
It's just a stethescope.
I'm not interested in how your responses make me feel.
I'm interested in how your responses meet certain basic, fixed parameters.
I am essentially listing to the sound of your mental state for certain irregularities which promote one diagnosis over another.
That's what a stethescope does, and it's what a Rorschach does.The effectiveness of the stethoscope can easily be measured and confirmed.
The sounds the stethoscope pick up (typically heart beats/breathing - I'm guessing?
) have been *proven* as a useful diagnostic tool.Quite true.The problem most people have with the Rorschach test or 'tool', however you want to word it - is that it doesn't measure anything.
It's some pictures.
They don't do ANYTHING.Well, in that sense, a stethescope is just some tubes and connectors.
It doesn't do anything.You can show them to someone and then interpret their answersYou can, but then you would be administering a test of your own devising.
That's fine, but it's not a Rorschach test, even if you used the standard Rorschach series cards.But, we (as a scientific community) still don't understand the inner workings of the mind.
Someone's answers are highly open for interpretation.Yes and no.
There's as much interpretation in the results of a Rorschach test as there is in the results of a stethescope.
You have to listen carefully and discern small variations.
The parameters are well-understood, but there's a skill in applying them correctly in both cases.
Even in the interpretation of an MRI or infrared sky survey there's a great deal of skill involved and the interpretation can most certainly be done wrong in all of the aforementioned cases.
The universe is a messy place, and all data is suspect.Even if we can agree that a certain type of answer or behavior while answering is 'abnormal'Abnormal isn't useful.
What's useful is data.When you look through a telescope and see that it's light bends a certain way when pushed through optics, you don't say, "that star is abnormal" and leave it at that.
You classify the star's optical properties and compare that to the optical properties of other stars.
There's no difference, here.
The test is designed to allow you to derive a set of metrics by which one patient can be compared to a universe of other patients.we don't know what causes it.We don't know what causes gravity and electromagnetism to interact in the way they do, but that doesn't stop us from classifying the behaviors of stars.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28700695</id>
	<title>Middle-ground?</title>
	<author>scott\_karana</author>
	<datestamp>1247599980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why can't they just have a warning before the images, like the "spoilers ahead" tags?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't they just have a warning before the images , like the " spoilers ahead " tags ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't they just have a warning before the images, like the "spoilers ahead" tags?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697741</id>
	<title>wow!</title>
	<author>TrebleJunkie</author>
	<datestamp>1247573220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ten Vaginas!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ten Vaginas !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ten Vaginas!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696363</id>
	<title>Re:Ummm...</title>
	<author>mwvdlee</author>
	<datestamp>1247565960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These blobs were specifically designed to include as many penisses, vaginas and boobs as possible.<br>It's not easy to make blobs which match their quantity of private parts.<br>Trust me on this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These blobs were specifically designed to include as many penisses , vaginas and boobs as possible.It 's not easy to make blobs which match their quantity of private parts.Trust me on this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These blobs were specifically designed to include as many penisses, vaginas and boobs as possible.It's not easy to make blobs which match their quantity of private parts.Trust me on this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28699103</id>
	<title>Great story....</title>
	<author>CFD339</author>
	<datestamp>1247583840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A guy goes to see a shrink for some help dealing with his relationships.  He's already done the ink blot tests, so the shrink tries a new version, drawn with straight lines in seemingly random ways, but also bilaterally symmetric.</p><p>To the first picture, the guy sees a naked couple on the beach.<br>To the second picture, the guy sees a couple taking a shower.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>it goes on like that for a while, and the shrink ends by saying "You sir, are obsessed by sex."<br>The may responds,  "Me, what the hell, Doc?  You're the one drawing all the dirty pictures!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A guy goes to see a shrink for some help dealing with his relationships .
He 's already done the ink blot tests , so the shrink tries a new version , drawn with straight lines in seemingly random ways , but also bilaterally symmetric.To the first picture , the guy sees a naked couple on the beach.To the second picture , the guy sees a couple taking a shower .
...it goes on like that for a while , and the shrink ends by saying " You sir , are obsessed by sex .
" The may responds , " Me , what the hell , Doc ?
You 're the one drawing all the dirty pictures !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A guy goes to see a shrink for some help dealing with his relationships.
He's already done the ink blot tests, so the shrink tries a new version, drawn with straight lines in seemingly random ways, but also bilaterally symmetric.To the first picture, the guy sees a naked couple on the beach.To the second picture, the guy sees a couple taking a shower.
...it goes on like that for a while, and the shrink ends by saying "You sir, are obsessed by sex.
"The may responds,  "Me, what the hell, Doc?
You're the one drawing all the dirty pictures!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28701625</id>
	<title>What the world has come to</title>
	<author>CrashandDie</author>
	<datestamp>1247659980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some might have heard of The Battle of Poitier, or the Siege of Orleans, The Battle of Waterloo, or the Battle of Saratoga...<br> <br>

But those battles are all shadowed to be forgotten by the <em>epicness</em> of the Battle of Wikipedia!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some might have heard of The Battle of Poitier , or the Siege of Orleans , The Battle of Waterloo , or the Battle of Saratoga.. . But those battles are all shadowed to be forgotten by the epicness of the Battle of Wikipedia !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some might have heard of The Battle of Poitier, or the Siege of Orleans, The Battle of Waterloo, or the Battle of Saratoga... 

But those battles are all shadowed to be forgotten by the epicness of the Battle of Wikipedia!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28699251</id>
	<title>Re:I thought they..</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1247585100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's a tool that allows the person administering it to better understand the mental state of the person they're dealing with in a way that doesn't allow them to employ the usual defensive responses. I</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
BS.  Anyone with a brain and the right incentive can work around the "usual defensive responses" crap.  It's not exactly a "deep" test.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a tool that allows the person administering it to better understand the mental state of the person they 're dealing with in a way that does n't allow them to employ the usual defensive responses .
I BS .
Anyone with a brain and the right incentive can work around the " usual defensive responses " crap .
It 's not exactly a " deep " test .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a tool that allows the person administering it to better understand the mental state of the person they're dealing with in a way that doesn't allow them to employ the usual defensive responses.
I

BS.
Anyone with a brain and the right incentive can work around the "usual defensive responses" crap.
It's not exactly a "deep" test.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697309</id>
	<title>its not !@# censorship</title>
	<author>caeled</author>
	<datestamp>1247570640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I get a bit disturbed the continued mis-use of the word "censorship"

Censorship is something governments do.
Facebook telling you that you cannot post something offensive is not censorship.

Slashdot deciding your story or comment is not worthy of publishing is not censorship.

Apple deciding to not let pornographic image applications be sold on the the store is not censorship.

And certainly deciding to not publish something because a useful tool would be rendered relatively useless is also not censorship.

A news agency deciding (on its own) not to publish troop movements is not censorship.

The US government telling it that it cannot would be.

The difference is not subtle.  There is no "right to know" or "right to have access to everything"</htmltext>
<tokenext>I get a bit disturbed the continued mis-use of the word " censorship " Censorship is something governments do .
Facebook telling you that you can not post something offensive is not censorship .
Slashdot deciding your story or comment is not worthy of publishing is not censorship .
Apple deciding to not let pornographic image applications be sold on the the store is not censorship .
And certainly deciding to not publish something because a useful tool would be rendered relatively useless is also not censorship .
A news agency deciding ( on its own ) not to publish troop movements is not censorship .
The US government telling it that it can not would be .
The difference is not subtle .
There is no " right to know " or " right to have access to everything "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get a bit disturbed the continued mis-use of the word "censorship"

Censorship is something governments do.
Facebook telling you that you cannot post something offensive is not censorship.
Slashdot deciding your story or comment is not worthy of publishing is not censorship.
Apple deciding to not let pornographic image applications be sold on the the store is not censorship.
And certainly deciding to not publish something because a useful tool would be rendered relatively useless is also not censorship.
A news agency deciding (on its own) not to publish troop movements is not censorship.
The US government telling it that it cannot would be.
The difference is not subtle.
There is no "right to know" or "right to have access to everything"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697525</id>
	<title>Psicology is a pseudocience</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247571600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So who cares about it. The full psicology thing is a scam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So who cares about it .
The full psicology thing is a scam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So who cares about it.
The full psicology thing is a scam.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696297</id>
	<title>Broken model</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247565780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow! This whole "my business model is broken, please prop it up by legislation so I don't have to fix it" meme, is getting tedious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow !
This whole " my business model is broken , please prop it up by legislation so I do n't have to fix it " meme , is getting tedious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow!
This whole "my business model is broken, please prop it up by legislation so I don't have to fix it" meme, is getting tedious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696067</id>
	<title>Rorschach Censorship</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247564940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I went to the Wikipedia page and saw what appears to be ten pictures of vaginas. Is that why everyone is so worked up about this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I went to the Wikipedia page and saw what appears to be ten pictures of vaginas .
Is that why everyone is so worked up about this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I went to the Wikipedia page and saw what appears to be ten pictures of vaginas.
Is that why everyone is so worked up about this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28698597</id>
	<title>Re:information wants to be free...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247579460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was easy!  As a neurobiologist, I can appreciate the inherent bilateral symmetry.  Each image appears extremely reminiscent of a slice through the nervous system at some level.  That's all I can see.  No matter how hard I try, it's only cross-sections of gross nervous tissue that come to mind.</p><p>Oops!  Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "slice."  It implies a tendency to violence, e.g. slashing, stabbing, cutting.  The idea of detached and disembodied nervous tissue also connotes a similar psychopathology.  In a society that represses most acts and even thoughts of violence, these associations can be very disturbing.</p><p>But in fact the images all seem much too symmetrical.  Reality seldom conforms so perfectly.  Such an unnatural series can only fail to deeply stimulate the imagination.  They are much like the popular fractal patterns.  There seems to be a freshness and multiplicity, but the forms are essentially identical and highly predictable.  In other words, they are, like psychology and psychologists, stale, stagnant, and boring.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was easy !
As a neurobiologist , I can appreciate the inherent bilateral symmetry .
Each image appears extremely reminiscent of a slice through the nervous system at some level .
That 's all I can see .
No matter how hard I try , it 's only cross-sections of gross nervous tissue that come to mind.Oops !
Maybe I should n't have used the word " slice .
" It implies a tendency to violence , e.g .
slashing , stabbing , cutting .
The idea of detached and disembodied nervous tissue also connotes a similar psychopathology .
In a society that represses most acts and even thoughts of violence , these associations can be very disturbing.But in fact the images all seem much too symmetrical .
Reality seldom conforms so perfectly .
Such an unnatural series can only fail to deeply stimulate the imagination .
They are much like the popular fractal patterns .
There seems to be a freshness and multiplicity , but the forms are essentially identical and highly predictable .
In other words , they are , like psychology and psychologists , stale , stagnant , and boring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was easy!
As a neurobiologist, I can appreciate the inherent bilateral symmetry.
Each image appears extremely reminiscent of a slice through the nervous system at some level.
That's all I can see.
No matter how hard I try, it's only cross-sections of gross nervous tissue that come to mind.Oops!
Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "slice.
"  It implies a tendency to violence, e.g.
slashing, stabbing, cutting.
The idea of detached and disembodied nervous tissue also connotes a similar psychopathology.
In a society that represses most acts and even thoughts of violence, these associations can be very disturbing.But in fact the images all seem much too symmetrical.
Reality seldom conforms so perfectly.
Such an unnatural series can only fail to deeply stimulate the imagination.
They are much like the popular fractal patterns.
There seems to be a freshness and multiplicity, but the forms are essentially identical and highly predictable.
In other words, they are, like psychology and psychologists, stale, stagnant, and boring.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697591</id>
	<title>Re:Suggested reading</title>
	<author>starfishsystems</author>
	<datestamp>1247572140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed.  A diagnostic model that depends on secrecy already known to be compromised is not a reliable model.  It was always brittle, and not uncontroversial.  Now it's broken.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
A diagnostic model that depends on secrecy already known to be compromised is not a reliable model .
It was always brittle , and not uncontroversial .
Now it 's broken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
A diagnostic model that depends on secrecy already known to be compromised is not a reliable model.
It was always brittle, and not uncontroversial.
Now it's broken.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696037</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697285</id>
	<title>Re:So what???</title>
	<author>JumpDrive</author>
	<datestamp>1247570460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. This is Harry yelling at me to get up
2. This is Harry yelling at me because I'm dating his daughter
3.  This is Harry yelling at me because I used the wrong drill<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
This is Harry yelling at me to get up 2 .
This is Harry yelling at me because I 'm dating his daughter 3 .
This is Harry yelling at me because I used the wrong drill . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
This is Harry yelling at me to get up
2.
This is Harry yelling at me because I'm dating his daughter
3.
This is Harry yelling at me because I used the wrong drill ..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28699033</id>
	<title>Again, there's a simple solution</title>
	<author>Minwee</author>
	<datestamp>1247583240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just use a different test.
</p><p> <em>"You're in a desert, walking along in the sand, when all of a sudden you look down... "</em></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just use a different test .
" You 're in a desert , walking along in the sand , when all of a sudden you look down... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just use a different test.
"You're in a desert, walking along in the sand, when all of a sudden you look down... "</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28700567</id>
	<title>Re:Wait until the optometrists...</title>
	<author>Dhalka226</author>
	<datestamp>1247598180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your comment is both funny and insightful, but at least coupled with my own experience it also goes to validate the psychologists' concerns.

</p><p>I have terrible, terrible eyesight, that got progressively worse for years.  I don't remember where I started on that chart as far as being able to read it, but I distinctly recall moving from two lines down to one line down and finally, at one point, to the big "E."  You inform them you can't read lower lines and so they move up (or you try and you flub them and they move up), and eventually you get the question: "Can you read the top line?"

</p><p>I honestly didn't know if I could or not.  It was blurry, to be sure, but I could "see" it; I could make it out.  Couldn't I?  Or was my vision just near enough the line that I saw the pattern I knew it to be in the semi-randomness of the blur?  I really didn't know, and I don't know today.  All I can say for sure is that the next time I went to the eye doctor my vision had gotten slightly worse again and I knew the E was blurry enough that I couldn't actually make it out and only knew what was there.

</p><p>That, mind you, on an exam that it's in my own best interests to be forthright on and I had trouble based on having seen the chart in advance.  Now fast-forward to a hypothetical case where I have to take some psychological inkblot test; it's almost certainly in my best interest to give them an answer they might want to hear.  I'm probably in a situation where they either already think I'm crazy or are trying to screen crazy people out of something (a job, a security clearance, whatever).  Great from their perspective--but passing the test is what's in my own best interest from my own.

</p><p>As far as the inkblots go, I question their usefulness in general, which is why I tend to be ambivalent about whether or not they get published.  To whatever degree they ARE useful though, I can certainly see the argument that publishing them diminishes it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your comment is both funny and insightful , but at least coupled with my own experience it also goes to validate the psychologists ' concerns .
I have terrible , terrible eyesight , that got progressively worse for years .
I do n't remember where I started on that chart as far as being able to read it , but I distinctly recall moving from two lines down to one line down and finally , at one point , to the big " E. " You inform them you ca n't read lower lines and so they move up ( or you try and you flub them and they move up ) , and eventually you get the question : " Can you read the top line ?
" I honestly did n't know if I could or not .
It was blurry , to be sure , but I could " see " it ; I could make it out .
Could n't I ?
Or was my vision just near enough the line that I saw the pattern I knew it to be in the semi-randomness of the blur ?
I really did n't know , and I do n't know today .
All I can say for sure is that the next time I went to the eye doctor my vision had gotten slightly worse again and I knew the E was blurry enough that I could n't actually make it out and only knew what was there .
That , mind you , on an exam that it 's in my own best interests to be forthright on and I had trouble based on having seen the chart in advance .
Now fast-forward to a hypothetical case where I have to take some psychological inkblot test ; it 's almost certainly in my best interest to give them an answer they might want to hear .
I 'm probably in a situation where they either already think I 'm crazy or are trying to screen crazy people out of something ( a job , a security clearance , whatever ) .
Great from their perspective--but passing the test is what 's in my own best interest from my own .
As far as the inkblots go , I question their usefulness in general , which is why I tend to be ambivalent about whether or not they get published .
To whatever degree they ARE useful though , I can certainly see the argument that publishing them diminishes it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your comment is both funny and insightful, but at least coupled with my own experience it also goes to validate the psychologists' concerns.
I have terrible, terrible eyesight, that got progressively worse for years.
I don't remember where I started on that chart as far as being able to read it, but I distinctly recall moving from two lines down to one line down and finally, at one point, to the big "E."  You inform them you can't read lower lines and so they move up (or you try and you flub them and they move up), and eventually you get the question: "Can you read the top line?
"

I honestly didn't know if I could or not.
It was blurry, to be sure, but I could "see" it; I could make it out.
Couldn't I?
Or was my vision just near enough the line that I saw the pattern I knew it to be in the semi-randomness of the blur?
I really didn't know, and I don't know today.
All I can say for sure is that the next time I went to the eye doctor my vision had gotten slightly worse again and I knew the E was blurry enough that I couldn't actually make it out and only knew what was there.
That, mind you, on an exam that it's in my own best interests to be forthright on and I had trouble based on having seen the chart in advance.
Now fast-forward to a hypothetical case where I have to take some psychological inkblot test; it's almost certainly in my best interest to give them an answer they might want to hear.
I'm probably in a situation where they either already think I'm crazy or are trying to screen crazy people out of something (a job, a security clearance, whatever).
Great from their perspective--but passing the test is what's in my own best interest from my own.
As far as the inkblots go, I question their usefulness in general, which is why I tend to be ambivalent about whether or not they get published.
To whatever degree they ARE useful though, I can certainly see the argument that publishing them diminishes it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696731</id>
	<title>Re:I thought they..</title>
	<author>ajs</author>
	<datestamp>1247567820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The test is, and always has been, pop-psychology nonsense.  It's a cold reading in a phony clinical setting.  The diagnoses is always "more costly therapy sessions".</p><p>This is like the association of soothsayers trying to supress the "secret" of tarot or tea leave reading, because if everybody knows it wont be magic anymore.</p></div><p>You're wrong. The Rorschach test is not, nor has it ever been a tool for identifying what's wrong with you. It's a tool that allows the person administering it to better understand the mental state of the person they're dealing with in a way that doesn't allow them to employ the usual defensive responses. It further allows them to identify what major pathologies might be present, but does not provide a diagnosis. You're essentially implying that any tool which doesn't offer a full-blown diagnosis is akin to superstition and should be discarded.</p><p>By that logic, a stethoscope is a useless tool, since it never provides a complete diagnosis, but a set of data points that can be applied to one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The test is , and always has been , pop-psychology nonsense .
It 's a cold reading in a phony clinical setting .
The diagnoses is always " more costly therapy sessions " .This is like the association of soothsayers trying to supress the " secret " of tarot or tea leave reading , because if everybody knows it wont be magic anymore.You 're wrong .
The Rorschach test is not , nor has it ever been a tool for identifying what 's wrong with you .
It 's a tool that allows the person administering it to better understand the mental state of the person they 're dealing with in a way that does n't allow them to employ the usual defensive responses .
It further allows them to identify what major pathologies might be present , but does not provide a diagnosis .
You 're essentially implying that any tool which does n't offer a full-blown diagnosis is akin to superstition and should be discarded.By that logic , a stethoscope is a useless tool , since it never provides a complete diagnosis , but a set of data points that can be applied to one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The test is, and always has been, pop-psychology nonsense.
It's a cold reading in a phony clinical setting.
The diagnoses is always "more costly therapy sessions".This is like the association of soothsayers trying to supress the "secret" of tarot or tea leave reading, because if everybody knows it wont be magic anymore.You're wrong.
The Rorschach test is not, nor has it ever been a tool for identifying what's wrong with you.
It's a tool that allows the person administering it to better understand the mental state of the person they're dealing with in a way that doesn't allow them to employ the usual defensive responses.
It further allows them to identify what major pathologies might be present, but does not provide a diagnosis.
You're essentially implying that any tool which doesn't offer a full-blown diagnosis is akin to superstition and should be discarded.By that logic, a stethoscope is a useless tool, since it never provides a complete diagnosis, but a set of data points that can be applied to one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697477</id>
	<title>Re:Is it Human Nature to Foul One's Home?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247571420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the therapist is basing his work on the ignorance of his patients. That is kind of silly, isn't it?</p><p>The test is not a trade secret and the information is easily accessed in any respectable library. There is no reason why information of that nature shouldn't be available on Wikipedia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the therapist is basing his work on the ignorance of his patients .
That is kind of silly , is n't it ? The test is not a trade secret and the information is easily accessed in any respectable library .
There is no reason why information of that nature should n't be available on Wikipedia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the therapist is basing his work on the ignorance of his patients.
That is kind of silly, isn't it?The test is not a trade secret and the information is easily accessed in any respectable library.
There is no reason why information of that nature shouldn't be available on Wikipedia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696235</id>
	<title>Wikipedia is full of abusive admins</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247565600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Such as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:J.delanoy" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">J.delanoy</a> [wikipedia.org] and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dominic" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Dominic who blocks entire ISPs from editing</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Such as J.delanoy [ wikipedia.org ] and Dominic who blocks entire ISPs from editing [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Such as J.delanoy [wikipedia.org] and Dominic who blocks entire ISPs from editing [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695981</id>
	<title>Are the images important?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247564640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't the main requirement that they be ambiguous, so that what the subject says is more related to their internal state, rather than the input?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't the main requirement that they be ambiguous , so that what the subject says is more related to their internal state , rather than the input ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't the main requirement that they be ambiguous, so that what the subject says is more related to their internal state, rather than the input?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696005</id>
	<title>Ummm...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247564760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can't they just make more by pouring some ink on a piece of paper and folding it in half?  I thought the point of these was what the patient in question thought they looked like, not the appearance of the actual ink-blot.  I could be wrong though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't they just make more by pouring some ink on a piece of paper and folding it in half ?
I thought the point of these was what the patient in question thought they looked like , not the appearance of the actual ink-blot .
I could be wrong though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't they just make more by pouring some ink on a piece of paper and folding it in half?
I thought the point of these was what the patient in question thought they looked like, not the appearance of the actual ink-blot.
I could be wrong though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697395</id>
	<title>It has very empirical validity</title>
	<author>goffster</author>
	<datestamp>1247571060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Give the test to 100 people.<br>Have the 100 people do pre-screenings with psychologists.<br>Correlate the answers with clinical diagnosis.</p><p>It is *not* pop psychology, but anyone using it for anything other than a basic<br>litmus test is a quack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Give the test to 100 people.Have the 100 people do pre-screenings with psychologists.Correlate the answers with clinical diagnosis.It is * not * pop psychology , but anyone using it for anything other than a basiclitmus test is a quack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give the test to 100 people.Have the 100 people do pre-screenings with psychologists.Correlate the answers with clinical diagnosis.It is *not* pop psychology, but anyone using it for anything other than a basiclitmus test is a quack.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28702503</id>
	<title>solution</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1247667480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is this any different than a standard movie spoiler?</p><p>Solution:<br>Put the images under a show/hide section with an alert about the spoiler effect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this any different than a standard movie spoiler ? Solution : Put the images under a show/hide section with an alert about the spoiler effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this any different than a standard movie spoiler?Solution:Put the images under a show/hide section with an alert about the spoiler effect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697861</id>
	<title>Re:I thought they..</title>
	<author>severoon</author>
	<datestamp>1247574060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The test does provide interesting info. Not about the subject, though--about the one administering it, to the observers that are always behind the one-way mirror, evaluating that person.
</p><p>(Just doing my part to make the psychologists of the world paranoid.)
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The test does provide interesting info .
Not about the subject , though--about the one administering it , to the observers that are always behind the one-way mirror , evaluating that person .
( Just doing my part to make the psychologists of the world paranoid .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The test does provide interesting info.
Not about the subject, though--about the one administering it, to the observers that are always behind the one-way mirror, evaluating that person.
(Just doing my part to make the psychologists of the world paranoid.
)
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28701913</id>
	<title>Eye Exam Chart?</title>
	<author>louks</author>
	<datestamp>1247663220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have memorized the 20/20 line of the standard eye exam chart.  It's D-E-F-P-O-T-E-C.  Does that mean they should hide it from the public so people like me can't "game" the system?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have memorized the 20/20 line of the standard eye exam chart .
It 's D-E-F-P-O-T-E-C. Does that mean they should hide it from the public so people like me ca n't " game " the system ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have memorized the 20/20 line of the standard eye exam chart.
It's D-E-F-P-O-T-E-C.  Does that mean they should hide it from the public so people like me can't "game" the system?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28698783</id>
	<title>What I see</title>
	<author>Cruciform</author>
	<datestamp>1247580960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Plate 1: An alien anteater with 4 eyes.<br>Plate 2: The skin cut off cookie monsters face.<br>Plate 3: Pelvis bone and butterfly in stomach.<br>Plate 4: A giant knocked flat on his back with a dragon's head escaping from his ass.<br>Plate 5: The rabbit from Donni Darko reaching out to hug me.<br>Plate 6: Bill the Cat<br>Plate 7: A beard I wouldn't be caught dead in.<br>Plate 8: Two wolverines climbing a stack of garbage.<br>Plate 9: The FreeBSD Demon plush toy<br>Plate 10: Panicked aliens running from a facehugger.</p><p>These were my first impressions of each. No attempt to get around them with trickery by reading what is expected to be seen.<br>So, where am I at psychologically?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Plate 1 : An alien anteater with 4 eyes.Plate 2 : The skin cut off cookie monsters face.Plate 3 : Pelvis bone and butterfly in stomach.Plate 4 : A giant knocked flat on his back with a dragon 's head escaping from his ass.Plate 5 : The rabbit from Donni Darko reaching out to hug me.Plate 6 : Bill the CatPlate 7 : A beard I would n't be caught dead in.Plate 8 : Two wolverines climbing a stack of garbage.Plate 9 : The FreeBSD Demon plush toyPlate 10 : Panicked aliens running from a facehugger.These were my first impressions of each .
No attempt to get around them with trickery by reading what is expected to be seen.So , where am I at psychologically ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plate 1: An alien anteater with 4 eyes.Plate 2: The skin cut off cookie monsters face.Plate 3: Pelvis bone and butterfly in stomach.Plate 4: A giant knocked flat on his back with a dragon's head escaping from his ass.Plate 5: The rabbit from Donni Darko reaching out to hug me.Plate 6: Bill the CatPlate 7: A beard I wouldn't be caught dead in.Plate 8: Two wolverines climbing a stack of garbage.Plate 9: The FreeBSD Demon plush toyPlate 10: Panicked aliens running from a facehugger.These were my first impressions of each.
No attempt to get around them with trickery by reading what is expected to be seen.So, where am I at psychologically?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28707467</id>
	<title>Sacred Cows - kill kill kill  -  Steak au Poivre</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247691480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have Lorem Ipsum generators - why no Rorschach generators? no SVGsplat?</p><p>If you can't get off that couch - get wireless</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have Lorem Ipsum generators - why no Rorschach generators ?
no SVGsplat ? If you ca n't get off that couch - get wireless</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have Lorem Ipsum generators - why no Rorschach generators?
no SVGsplat?If you can't get off that couch - get wireless</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28698119</id>
	<title>Re:Suggested reading</title>
	<author>ljw1004</author>
	<datestamp>1247575920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In 90 seconds, how many different uses can you think of for a tree-trunk?</p><p>There. I've now spoiled this test for you. It's an otherwise useful test that's routinely used in clinical diagnosis for alzheimers disease, but when it comes time for you to go to the doctor for a mental health diagnosis then you'll get inaccurate test results. Sorry about that. But you know, security through obscurity doesn't work...</p><p>Why a fork? Why 90 seconds? Why must the patient be unprepared? -- because researchers have spent many thousands of dollars and many thousands of double-blind patients to calibrate it. Any different object, any different time period, and your results wouldn't be calibrated, and they'd lose their diagnostic value.</p><p>Conclusion: security through obscurity is necessary for some of these tests, even if it doesn't work that well.</p><p>PS. Actually the object they calibrated for isn't really a tree-trunk, so you're okay this time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In 90 seconds , how many different uses can you think of for a tree-trunk ? There .
I 've now spoiled this test for you .
It 's an otherwise useful test that 's routinely used in clinical diagnosis for alzheimers disease , but when it comes time for you to go to the doctor for a mental health diagnosis then you 'll get inaccurate test results .
Sorry about that .
But you know , security through obscurity does n't work...Why a fork ?
Why 90 seconds ?
Why must the patient be unprepared ?
-- because researchers have spent many thousands of dollars and many thousands of double-blind patients to calibrate it .
Any different object , any different time period , and your results would n't be calibrated , and they 'd lose their diagnostic value.Conclusion : security through obscurity is necessary for some of these tests , even if it does n't work that well.PS .
Actually the object they calibrated for is n't really a tree-trunk , so you 're okay this time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 90 seconds, how many different uses can you think of for a tree-trunk?There.
I've now spoiled this test for you.
It's an otherwise useful test that's routinely used in clinical diagnosis for alzheimers disease, but when it comes time for you to go to the doctor for a mental health diagnosis then you'll get inaccurate test results.
Sorry about that.
But you know, security through obscurity doesn't work...Why a fork?
Why 90 seconds?
Why must the patient be unprepared?
-- because researchers have spent many thousands of dollars and many thousands of double-blind patients to calibrate it.
Any different object, any different time period, and your results wouldn't be calibrated, and they'd lose their diagnostic value.Conclusion: security through obscurity is necessary for some of these tests, even if it doesn't work that well.PS.
Actually the object they calibrated for isn't really a tree-trunk, so you're okay this time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696037</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697035</id>
	<title>Re:Is it Human Nature to Foul One's Home?</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1247569320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Nobody else has any legitimate reason to access it unless they're being examined.</p><p>Could we have an example of an "illegitimate" reason?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Nobody else has any legitimate reason to access it unless they 're being examined.Could we have an example of an " illegitimate " reason ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Nobody else has any legitimate reason to access it unless they're being examined.Could we have an example of an "illegitimate" reason?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28706541</id>
	<title>Emo Emo Emo</title>
	<author>breadlord</author>
	<datestamp>1247687280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of my favorite Emo Phillips jokes goies something like this:
Psychiatrist: OK, I'm going to show you some pictures. What does this one look like?
Emo: That looks like standard pattern 47 in the Rorschach series to test for obsessive-compulsive behavior.
(doctor gets angry)
Emo: OK, it looks like a butterfly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of my favorite Emo Phillips jokes goies something like this : Psychiatrist : OK , I 'm going to show you some pictures .
What does this one look like ?
Emo : That looks like standard pattern 47 in the Rorschach series to test for obsessive-compulsive behavior .
( doctor gets angry ) Emo : OK , it looks like a butterfly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of my favorite Emo Phillips jokes goies something like this:
Psychiatrist: OK, I'm going to show you some pictures.
What does this one look like?
Emo: That looks like standard pattern 47 in the Rorschach series to test for obsessive-compulsive behavior.
(doctor gets angry)
Emo: OK, it looks like a butterfly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697429</id>
	<title>Re:Hurm</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1247571180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[analyst type="Freudian"]I see zat you have ze severe anal fixation.  Zis is a result of stunted development, leaving you schtuck in ze anal phase, most likely when a parent made you feel ze shame at ze natural excretions of ze bowels.  Ve must get to ze bottom of zis to enable you to become ze adult functional person!  Zo...  tell me about your mother?"[/analyst]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ analyst type = " Freudian " ] I see zat you have ze severe anal fixation .
Zis is a result of stunted development , leaving you schtuck in ze anal phase , most likely when a parent made you feel ze shame at ze natural excretions of ze bowels .
Ve must get to ze bottom of zis to enable you to become ze adult functional person !
Zo... tell me about your mother ?
" [ /analyst ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[analyst type="Freudian"]I see zat you have ze severe anal fixation.
Zis is a result of stunted development, leaving you schtuck in ze anal phase, most likely when a parent made you feel ze shame at ze natural excretions of ze bowels.
Ve must get to ze bottom of zis to enable you to become ze adult functional person!
Zo...  tell me about your mother?
"[/analyst]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697881</id>
	<title>oh really</title>
	<author>Kartoffel</author>
	<datestamp>1247574180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as they're throwing hissy fits about Rorschach tests, they might as well yank the article on eye charts:<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snellen\_chart" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snellen\_chart</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Here,<br>E<br>FP<br>TOZ<br>LPED<br>PECFD<br>EDFCZP<br>FELOPZD<br>DEFPOTEC</p><p>I humbly await the eye doctors of the world to DMCA me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as they 're throwing hissy fits about Rorschach tests , they might as well yank the article on eye charts : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snellen \ _chart [ wikipedia.org ] Here,EFPTOZLPEDPECFDEDFCZPFELOPZDDEFPOTECI humbly await the eye doctors of the world to DMCA me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as they're throwing hissy fits about Rorschach tests, they might as well yank the article on eye charts:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snellen\_chart [wikipedia.org]Here,EFPTOZLPEDPECFDEDFCZPFELOPZDDEFPOTECI humbly await the eye doctors of the world to DMCA me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696603</id>
	<title>Elephants!</title>
	<author>FusionJunky</author>
	<datestamp>1247567220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are elephants in EVERY ONE of those blots!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are elephants in EVERY ONE of those blots !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are elephants in EVERY ONE of those blots!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28699109</id>
	<title>Roll your own Rorschak Test</title>
	<author>rekinom</author>
	<datestamp>1247583900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Screw the canonical Rorschak test. Let's roll our own. It's simple. You need:

(1) 4x10 squares of Scott Tissue
(2) One tablespoonful of Epsom salts dissolved in 24 oz. warm water.
(3) A pen and a pad of paper.
(4) Friends or patients as test subjects.

Drink (2) as quickly as possible. When you need to use (1), fold each 4-ply segment into one square, apply, unfold and place aside to dry. Repeat until all Scott tissue has been used. Repeat (1) if necessary.

Write a personal interpretation of each 1x4 ply Rorschak blot, and then square friends' or clients' interpretations against your own.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Screw the canonical Rorschak test .
Let 's roll our own .
It 's simple .
You need : ( 1 ) 4x10 squares of Scott Tissue ( 2 ) One tablespoonful of Epsom salts dissolved in 24 oz .
warm water .
( 3 ) A pen and a pad of paper .
( 4 ) Friends or patients as test subjects .
Drink ( 2 ) as quickly as possible .
When you need to use ( 1 ) , fold each 4-ply segment into one square , apply , unfold and place aside to dry .
Repeat until all Scott tissue has been used .
Repeat ( 1 ) if necessary .
Write a personal interpretation of each 1x4 ply Rorschak blot , and then square friends ' or clients ' interpretations against your own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Screw the canonical Rorschak test.
Let's roll our own.
It's simple.
You need:

(1) 4x10 squares of Scott Tissue
(2) One tablespoonful of Epsom salts dissolved in 24 oz.
warm water.
(3) A pen and a pad of paper.
(4) Friends or patients as test subjects.
Drink (2) as quickly as possible.
When you need to use (1), fold each 4-ply segment into one square, apply, unfold and place aside to dry.
Repeat until all Scott tissue has been used.
Repeat (1) if necessary.
Write a personal interpretation of each 1x4 ply Rorschak blot, and then square friends' or clients' interpretations against your own.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696095</id>
	<title>information wants to be free...</title>
	<author>adolf</author>
	<datestamp>1247565000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The website cited for being the source of the image currently at the top of the Wikipedia page is <a href="http://ar.geocities.com/test\_de\_rorschach/" title="geocities.com">here</a> [geocities.com], with its English counterpart being <a href="http://ar.geocities.com/test\_de\_rorschach/index-en.htm/" title="geocities.com">right here</a> [geocities.com].</p><p>It includes all 10 Rorschach images.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The website cited for being the source of the image currently at the top of the Wikipedia page is here [ geocities.com ] , with its English counterpart being right here [ geocities.com ] .It includes all 10 Rorschach images .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The website cited for being the source of the image currently at the top of the Wikipedia page is here [geocities.com], with its English counterpart being right here [geocities.com].It includes all 10 Rorschach images.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696049</id>
	<title>Let me google that for you</title>
	<author>Ractive</author>
	<datestamp>1247564880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do a google search. <br> It seems that the stupid blots are already all over the internet so whether this association wants it or not, it has leaked, there's nothing they can do.<br>

I see a Streisand effect coming though...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do a google search .
It seems that the stupid blots are already all over the internet so whether this association wants it or not , it has leaked , there 's nothing they can do .
I see a Streisand effect coming though.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do a google search.
It seems that the stupid blots are already all over the internet so whether this association wants it or not, it has leaked, there's nothing they can do.
I see a Streisand effect coming though...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28699061</id>
	<title>Re:I thought they..</title>
	<author>Glyphn</author>
	<datestamp>1247583480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Testing is difficult. Having a well-understood tool with a wide body of reference material is important. Intentionally screwing up an important test by publishing the details about that test is unethical.</p></div><p>You assume motive (the purpose of publishing is to screw up the test), but even if we allow motive, it doesn't necessarily follow that the motive is unethical -- e.g. perhaps the publisher  believes the test is invalid or harmful and wishes to obsolete it, or perhaps the publisher has considered pros and cons and even though they acknowledge possible harm still considers it overall beneficial to publish</p><p>

Aside, criticisms of publishing the test seem most sensible if we treat the Rorschach test as irreplaceable.  But then I wonder, if it is truly irreplaceable, how does one analyze a psychiatrist or psychologist who has already been exposed to the test?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Testing is difficult .
Having a well-understood tool with a wide body of reference material is important .
Intentionally screwing up an important test by publishing the details about that test is unethical.You assume motive ( the purpose of publishing is to screw up the test ) , but even if we allow motive , it does n't necessarily follow that the motive is unethical -- e.g .
perhaps the publisher believes the test is invalid or harmful and wishes to obsolete it , or perhaps the publisher has considered pros and cons and even though they acknowledge possible harm still considers it overall beneficial to publish Aside , criticisms of publishing the test seem most sensible if we treat the Rorschach test as irreplaceable .
But then I wonder , if it is truly irreplaceable , how does one analyze a psychiatrist or psychologist who has already been exposed to the test ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Testing is difficult.
Having a well-understood tool with a wide body of reference material is important.
Intentionally screwing up an important test by publishing the details about that test is unethical.You assume motive (the purpose of publishing is to screw up the test), but even if we allow motive, it doesn't necessarily follow that the motive is unethical -- e.g.
perhaps the publisher  believes the test is invalid or harmful and wishes to obsolete it, or perhaps the publisher has considered pros and cons and even though they acknowledge possible harm still considers it overall beneficial to publish

Aside, criticisms of publishing the test seem most sensible if we treat the Rorschach test as irreplaceable.
But then I wonder, if it is truly irreplaceable, how does one analyze a psychiatrist or psychologist who has already been exposed to the test?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28698209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697343</id>
	<title>Re:Is it Human Nature to Foul One's Home?</title>
	<author>rohan972</author>
	<datestamp>1247570820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Human being seem to always put their own short-term self-interest ahead of group self-interest, even when group self-interest is in the individual's longer term self-interest. There is no good reason to broadcast the Rohrschach test. Anybody who wants to do research can access it without any problem. Nobody else has any legitimate reason to access it unless they're being examined.</p></div><p>In most countries you can have your civil rights removed on the basis of psychological testing and diagnoses. It can affect the outcome of court cases, education and employment, gun rights, drivers licensing, even up to forcible detention and medication. Most of those do not even require a conviction against you. Psychologists and psychiatrists have no right to secret procedures. They have been handed too much power for that to be a viable option.
<br> <br>
If they wish to have secret procedures, then it ought to be the law of the land that no diagnoses has any legal effect except it is confirmed by jury.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Human being seem to always put their own short-term self-interest ahead of group self-interest , even when group self-interest is in the individual 's longer term self-interest .
There is no good reason to broadcast the Rohrschach test .
Anybody who wants to do research can access it without any problem .
Nobody else has any legitimate reason to access it unless they 're being examined.In most countries you can have your civil rights removed on the basis of psychological testing and diagnoses .
It can affect the outcome of court cases , education and employment , gun rights , drivers licensing , even up to forcible detention and medication .
Most of those do not even require a conviction against you .
Psychologists and psychiatrists have no right to secret procedures .
They have been handed too much power for that to be a viable option .
If they wish to have secret procedures , then it ought to be the law of the land that no diagnoses has any legal effect except it is confirmed by jury .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Human being seem to always put their own short-term self-interest ahead of group self-interest, even when group self-interest is in the individual's longer term self-interest.
There is no good reason to broadcast the Rohrschach test.
Anybody who wants to do research can access it without any problem.
Nobody else has any legitimate reason to access it unless they're being examined.In most countries you can have your civil rights removed on the basis of psychological testing and diagnoses.
It can affect the outcome of court cases, education and employment, gun rights, drivers licensing, even up to forcible detention and medication.
Most of those do not even require a conviction against you.
Psychologists and psychiatrists have no right to secret procedures.
They have been handed too much power for that to be a viable option.
If they wish to have secret procedures, then it ought to be the law of the land that no diagnoses has any legal effect except it is confirmed by jury.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696289</id>
	<title>so lock me up in your institution.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247565780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>so really crazy is a difference of opinion. if the 10 ink blobs are not random, then because you dont agree with what i say about what i think they look like and how i go about examining each so that i can make my decision, and if you dont agree with me.. give me a padded room with a view and feed me every day. thank you very much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>so really crazy is a difference of opinion .
if the 10 ink blobs are not random , then because you dont agree with what i say about what i think they look like and how i go about examining each so that i can make my decision , and if you dont agree with me.. give me a padded room with a view and feed me every day .
thank you very much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so really crazy is a difference of opinion.
if the 10 ink blobs are not random, then because you dont agree with what i say about what i think they look like and how i go about examining each so that i can make my decision, and if you dont agree with me.. give me a padded room with a view and feed me every day.
thank you very much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696781</id>
	<title>Re:Public Domain Man</title>
	<author>EdIII</author>
	<datestamp>1247568240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see why there can't be some middle ground.  Like a disclaimer before looking at the pictures that the APA states that looking at these "tests" lowers the performance of the tests and may end up ultimately harming the users ability to receive treatment.</p><p>What they are asking does make sense.  There is just no legal or ethical foundation for a *demand*.  Just a courtesy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see why there ca n't be some middle ground .
Like a disclaimer before looking at the pictures that the APA states that looking at these " tests " lowers the performance of the tests and may end up ultimately harming the users ability to receive treatment.What they are asking does make sense .
There is just no legal or ethical foundation for a * demand * .
Just a courtesy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see why there can't be some middle ground.
Like a disclaimer before looking at the pictures that the APA states that looking at these "tests" lowers the performance of the tests and may end up ultimately harming the users ability to receive treatment.What they are asking does make sense.
There is just no legal or ethical foundation for a *demand*.
Just a courtesy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695969</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28700549</id>
	<title>This is not for Wikipedia to debate.</title>
	<author>Badass Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1247597940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>ANYONE who wishes to publish this information on Wikipedia has the right to do so because the information is correct, legal to publish, and unbiased(political speech or a sales pitch).  The only time that Wikipedia's super-editors should ever censor a contribution is when it could damage their reputation for trying to provide legitimate information.  If people can remember to keep this in mind then we shouldn't have to have such pointless debates in the future.

As far as the Rorschach test goes, I simply doubt that it is important enough to protect it from scrutiny.  Vagina in a blender.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ANYONE who wishes to publish this information on Wikipedia has the right to do so because the information is correct , legal to publish , and unbiased ( political speech or a sales pitch ) .
The only time that Wikipedia 's super-editors should ever censor a contribution is when it could damage their reputation for trying to provide legitimate information .
If people can remember to keep this in mind then we should n't have to have such pointless debates in the future .
As far as the Rorschach test goes , I simply doubt that it is important enough to protect it from scrutiny .
Vagina in a blender .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ANYONE who wishes to publish this information on Wikipedia has the right to do so because the information is correct, legal to publish, and unbiased(political speech or a sales pitch).
The only time that Wikipedia's super-editors should ever censor a contribution is when it could damage their reputation for trying to provide legitimate information.
If people can remember to keep this in mind then we shouldn't have to have such pointless debates in the future.
As far as the Rorschach test goes, I simply doubt that it is important enough to protect it from scrutiny.
Vagina in a blender.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28699517</id>
	<title>it's a...</title>
	<author>soniCron88</author>
	<datestamp>1247587080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>***SPOILER ALERT!!!***</htmltext>
<tokenext>* * * SPOILER ALERT ! ! !
* * *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>***SPOILER ALERT!!!
***</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696149</id>
	<title>Clearly they should be omitted from wikipedia...</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1247565360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>... because if they aren't on wikipedia, then nobody will <b>ever</b> find them on the internet and the images will be safe forever!</htmltext>
<tokenext>... because if they are n't on wikipedia , then nobody will ever find them on the internet and the images will be safe forever !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... because if they aren't on wikipedia, then nobody will ever find them on the internet and the images will be safe forever!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697363</id>
	<title>Re:I thought they..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247570940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Rorschach test is not, nor has it ever been a tool for identifying what's wrong with you. It's a tool that allows the person administering it to better understand the mental state of the person they're dealing with in a way that doesn't allow them to employ the usual defensive responses.</p></div><p>Then it should be fine to use any 10 random, symmetrical images.  The APA's claim that only these 10 specific images have diagnostic value is what smacks of quackery.</p><p>If novelty is the key, then it's just a practical issue that the thousands of psychs out there already have these 10 images and can't be bothered to replace them, which doesn't seem like wikipedia's problem.  15 years since I've been to the eye doctor, and I can still tell you that the 20/20 line is TZVOCL.  Is that eye chart a useful tool?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Rorschach test is not , nor has it ever been a tool for identifying what 's wrong with you .
It 's a tool that allows the person administering it to better understand the mental state of the person they 're dealing with in a way that does n't allow them to employ the usual defensive responses.Then it should be fine to use any 10 random , symmetrical images .
The APA 's claim that only these 10 specific images have diagnostic value is what smacks of quackery.If novelty is the key , then it 's just a practical issue that the thousands of psychs out there already have these 10 images and ca n't be bothered to replace them , which does n't seem like wikipedia 's problem .
15 years since I 've been to the eye doctor , and I can still tell you that the 20/20 line is TZVOCL .
Is that eye chart a useful tool ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Rorschach test is not, nor has it ever been a tool for identifying what's wrong with you.
It's a tool that allows the person administering it to better understand the mental state of the person they're dealing with in a way that doesn't allow them to employ the usual defensive responses.Then it should be fine to use any 10 random, symmetrical images.
The APA's claim that only these 10 specific images have diagnostic value is what smacks of quackery.If novelty is the key, then it's just a practical issue that the thousands of psychs out there already have these 10 images and can't be bothered to replace them, which doesn't seem like wikipedia's problem.
15 years since I've been to the eye doctor, and I can still tell you that the 20/20 line is TZVOCL.
Is that eye chart a useful tool?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28699229</id>
	<title>Psychology is Science?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247584920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a reason why Psychology is part of an Arts major rather than a Science major.

What did the psych major say to the medical student..

"Would you like fries with that?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a reason why Psychology is part of an Arts major rather than a Science major .
What did the psych major say to the medical student. . " Would you like fries with that ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a reason why Psychology is part of an Arts major rather than a Science major.
What did the psych major say to the medical student..

"Would you like fries with that?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696303</id>
	<title>Re:So what???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247565840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Plates <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rorschach\_blot\_08.jpg" title="wikipedia.org">8</a> [wikipedia.org], <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rorschach\_blot\_09.jpg" title="wikipedia.org">9</a> [wikipedia.org], and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rorschach\_blot\_10.jpg" title="wikipedia.org">10</a> [wikipedia.org] are clearly vagina. Just like all <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia\_O'Keeffe" title="wikipedia.org">Georgia O'Keeffe</a> [wikipedia.org] paintings as well.<br>
<br>
Plates 3 and 4 are of boobs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Plates 8 [ wikipedia.org ] , 9 [ wikipedia.org ] , and 10 [ wikipedia.org ] are clearly vagina .
Just like all Georgia O'Keeffe [ wikipedia.org ] paintings as well .
Plates 3 and 4 are of boobs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plates 8 [wikipedia.org], 9 [wikipedia.org], and 10 [wikipedia.org] are clearly vagina.
Just like all Georgia O'Keeffe [wikipedia.org] paintings as well.
Plates 3 and 4 are of boobs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28701919</id>
	<title>Analyse me</title>
	<author>ChameleonDave</author>
	<datestamp>1247663280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><ol>
<li>Some sort of oversized, macabre and malevolent, flying insect.</li><li>A man's face, or a mask covering it.  His head is tilted back, and the mouth open.  The dark blots on each side are either a beard or blood.</li><li>A coat of arms featuring a pair of deer-like humanoids presenting an object, perhaps a precious ark, between them.  Trophies adorn the wall behind.</li><li>An Xmas tree.  Or, a man with withered arms giving birth to a missile.</li><li>A vampire bat, or a moth.</li><li>A fox that has been skinned and turned into a case for a small ukulele- or lyre-like stringed instrument.</li><li>A pair of adorable bunny rabbits enjoying a two-headed anal dildo.</li><li>The colourful segmented titanium armour or natural carapace of a large, fearsome humanoid warrior, perhaps a troll or an extraterrestrial. </li><li>The sacrificial altar, or the huge statue, of a bull deity.</li><li>Too much is going on in this one.  No clear image leaps to mind, except perhaps that of a child's painting.</li></ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some sort of oversized , macabre and malevolent , flying insect.A man 's face , or a mask covering it .
His head is tilted back , and the mouth open .
The dark blots on each side are either a beard or blood.A coat of arms featuring a pair of deer-like humanoids presenting an object , perhaps a precious ark , between them .
Trophies adorn the wall behind.An Xmas tree .
Or , a man with withered arms giving birth to a missile.A vampire bat , or a moth.A fox that has been skinned and turned into a case for a small ukulele- or lyre-like stringed instrument.A pair of adorable bunny rabbits enjoying a two-headed anal dildo.The colourful segmented titanium armour or natural carapace of a large , fearsome humanoid warrior , perhaps a troll or an extraterrestrial .
The sacrificial altar , or the huge statue , of a bull deity.Too much is going on in this one .
No clear image leaps to mind , except perhaps that of a child 's painting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Some sort of oversized, macabre and malevolent, flying insect.A man's face, or a mask covering it.
His head is tilted back, and the mouth open.
The dark blots on each side are either a beard or blood.A coat of arms featuring a pair of deer-like humanoids presenting an object, perhaps a precious ark, between them.
Trophies adorn the wall behind.An Xmas tree.
Or, a man with withered arms giving birth to a missile.A vampire bat, or a moth.A fox that has been skinned and turned into a case for a small ukulele- or lyre-like stringed instrument.A pair of adorable bunny rabbits enjoying a two-headed anal dildo.The colourful segmented titanium armour or natural carapace of a large, fearsome humanoid warrior, perhaps a troll or an extraterrestrial.
The sacrificial altar, or the huge statue, of a bull deity.Too much is going on in this one.
No clear image leaps to mind, except perhaps that of a child's painting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28702163</id>
	<title>COOL!</title>
	<author>Rangu Nikorasu</author>
	<datestamp>1247665440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Rorschach Test would be a fun one to fake. : )

What's it mean when they all look like "Satan"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rorschach Test would be a fun one to fake .
: ) What 's it mean when they all look like " Satan " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rorschach Test would be a fun one to fake.
: )

What's it mean when they all look like "Satan"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696313</id>
	<title>I don't see anything</title>
	<author>Mybrid</author>
	<datestamp>1247565840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see anything...</p><p>am I dead?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see anything...am I dead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see anything...am I dead?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696911</id>
	<title>Re:My Psyc Professor Already Invalidated Them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247568840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Wood pulp. Plant, vegetable, tomato. Water, salt, monosodium glutamate."</p><p>What's the movie?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Wood pulp .
Plant , vegetable , tomato .
Water , salt , monosodium glutamate .
" What 's the movie ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Wood pulp.
Plant, vegetable, tomato.
Water, salt, monosodium glutamate.
"What's the movie?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28699043</id>
	<title>The end is near!</title>
	<author>bob5972</author>
	<datestamp>1247583300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh no, now they'll have to make more inkblots!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh no , now they 'll have to make more inkblots !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh no, now they'll have to make more inkblots!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695991</id>
	<title>When were they released?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247564700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The wikipedia page says it made it to public domain in 1992.  Why exactly is this news?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The wikipedia page says it made it to public domain in 1992 .
Why exactly is this news ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The wikipedia page says it made it to public domain in 1992.
Why exactly is this news?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697905</id>
	<title>big whoop</title>
	<author>martas</author>
	<datestamp>1247574300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the inkblot test is a pretty bad one. interpreting the meaning behind a patient's answers is completely up to whoever administers the test, thus making the results potentially very biased. i say, let's ruin it by publishing the pictures wherever we can. it has plagued the field of psychotherapy long enough.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the inkblot test is a pretty bad one .
interpreting the meaning behind a patient 's answers is completely up to whoever administers the test , thus making the results potentially very biased .
i say , let 's ruin it by publishing the pictures wherever we can .
it has plagued the field of psychotherapy long enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the inkblot test is a pretty bad one.
interpreting the meaning behind a patient's answers is completely up to whoever administers the test, thus making the results potentially very biased.
i say, let's ruin it by publishing the pictures wherever we can.
it has plagued the field of psychotherapy long enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28700433</id>
	<title>Re:Public Domain Man</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1247596380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I question the ethic in that. Those tests are supposed to help diagnose mental disorders, not induce them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I question the ethic in that .
Those tests are supposed to help diagnose mental disorders , not induce them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I question the ethic in that.
Those tests are supposed to help diagnose mental disorders, not induce them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695969</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696729
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28730255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28698883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28699967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28703339
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28703447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28700215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28698735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28699087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28700567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28700993
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28700427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28698209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28699061
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28698597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28699251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28700473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28698449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697343
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28698247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28698399
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28707337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28698763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28703601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28700373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28707469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28698119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697027
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28701171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28698171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28699659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28705195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28700307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28702165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28700527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28700433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28700463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696993
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28718383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1829231_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1829231.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697395
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1829231.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28700427
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1829231.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696021
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1829231.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696377
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1829231.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696363
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1829231.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696089
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1829231.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697037
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1829231.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696289
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1829231.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696391
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697035
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697343
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1829231.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28701171
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697131
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28703447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696911
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697327
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696753
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1829231.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696729
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697027
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1829231.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28718383
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1829231.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28698597
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697561
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1829231.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696035
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1829231.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695991
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1829231.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28700473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28730255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28700567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696665
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696993
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28703601
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1829231.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695975
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28705195
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1829231.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696037
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28698119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28698449
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1829231.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28700307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28702165
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1829231.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697315
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1829231.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697823
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1829231.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696883
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1829231.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696123
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1829231.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28699087
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1829231.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696779
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1829231.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28698011
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1829231.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697611
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1829231.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695887
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695973
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696849
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697385
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28699659
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28698247
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28698171
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697039
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696891
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697373
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28703339
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696983
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696731
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697363
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28707469
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28700215
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697643
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697501
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697441
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28698763
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28700527
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28698209
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28699061
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697861
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697755
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28700993
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28700373
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28698883
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28698399
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28699251
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1829231.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696313
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1829231.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696235
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28707337
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1829231.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696067
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28698735
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1829231.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695951
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696303
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697285
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28699967
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696353
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696525
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1829231.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28698783
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1829231.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696329
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1829231.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696117
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28700463
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1829231.37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695981
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1829231.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28695969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28700433
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1829231.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28696069
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1829231.28697449
</commentlist>
</conversation>
